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

[D. Flame]

Kamiyama님이 먼저 게시:

On reddit I am part of https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/

AI is just a tool. The same as a paintbrush, or photoshop.

I'm old enough to remember the controversy around photoshop in the early 2000's and artists back then flipped their ♥♥♥♥ about all the "fake" photos people were making with photoshop.

It didn't stop photoshop phriday from becoming a thing over at the something awful forums.

https://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/

You can still see the posts there all the way back to 2001. People will use the latest tools for fun and creative things, and then the haters will screech, abuse, and discriminate and will inevitably be left behind as the new technology becomes commonplace.

AI is already being used in schools and the school children alive today are growing up in a world where AI is normal and commonplace. They will all be using AI in their jobs 20 years from now. They will be using AI at home. AI will be everywhere.

AI is the next dotcom boom. It will be used for everything.

Instead of threatening people who use it, maybe you could try it and learn something new.

Using a paint brush doesn't void copyright, but using AI does.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Instead of encouraging kids to be lazy we could encourage them to learn and create with their own hands.

A.I exist but it doesn't mean we should use it for everything, because at some point if we use it too much we're gonna destroy everything that make our lives feel like it's mean something.

[Nikalykos]

I don't understand how anyone can call themselves an AI artist. What kind of artistry are we talking about? The result of artistry is creating something. And an AI artist doesn't create anything. AI creates.

[Kamiyama]

Nikalykos님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand how anyone can call themselves an AI artist. What kind of artistry are we talking about? The result of artistry is creating something. And an AI artist doesn't create anything. AI creates. :Wolf_Stare:

All artwork has an owner. AI cannot own anything, because it has no legal rights. The human being using the AI is therefore the author and owner of the created artwork.

[Coinkydink]

They are not artists, they are just nerds with no creativity or anything worth anything ,so the topic is yet another waste of time.

[Kamiyama]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Kamiyama님이 먼저 게시:

On reddit I am part of https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/

AI is just a tool. The same as a paintbrush, or photoshop.

I'm old enough to remember the controversy around photoshop in the early 2000's and artists back then flipped their ♥♥♥♥ about all the "fake" photos people were making with photoshop.

It didn't stop photoshop phriday from becoming a thing over at the something awful forums.

https://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/

You can still see the posts there all the way back to 2001. People will use the latest tools for fun and creative things, and then the haters will screech, abuse, and discriminate and will inevitably be left behind as the new technology becomes commonplace.

AI is already being used in schools and the school children alive today are growing up in a world where AI is normal and commonplace. They will all be using AI in their jobs 20 years from now. They will be using AI at home. AI will be everywhere.

AI is the next dotcom boom. It will be used for everything.

Instead of threatening people who use it, maybe you could try it and learn something new.

Using a paint brush doesn't void copyright, but using AI does.

It's important to use correct terminology here. AI does not void copyright. AI works just aren't protected by the DMCA.

The DMCA was passed during the "oh my god people can create fake artwork with photoshop!?" craze in the early 2000's and was intended to prevent the internet from being flooded with "fake" digital artwork. The DMCA only protects artwork that has a human element to it.

For the record, all that digital artwork created with photoshop does have a human element to it, and so does AI generated artwork. A human being has to operate photoshop just like a human being has to operate an AI. You also get much better results if you are skilled and know how to use them.

The DMCA is archaic and was passed by scared judges who poorly understand digital art and were afraid of the fake art boogeyman. It's time that digital copyright laws get updated to provide protection for digital artworks.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Digital artwork made by humans are already protected by the laws , if A.I art is left out is because the human asking the A.I to create a picture is not considered to have created this picture unlike someone using a computer to draw with a pen or a mouse.

[Kamiyama]

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋님이 먼저 게시:

Digital artwork made by humans are already protected by the laws , if A.I art is left out is because the human asking the A.I to create a picture is not considered to have created this picture unlike someone using a computer to draw with a pen or a mouse.

Works created with photoshop is art too. There is a human element to it, and the best photoshopped pictures require a certain amount of skill with the software.

https://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/

^ Did you know slenderman originated there? It was one of their events to photoshop a ghost or monster into an old photo. The one with slenderman in it became a meme.

It's bizarre that the author of that work won't ever receive credit "because it lacks a human element"

That's such BS. The DMCA is outdated.

AI artwork should also be protected. What matters is that the human author is able to bring their thing to market.

Does the suffering of making a thing make it more valuable? Now that we can make synthetic diamonds, why do people continue to pay for blood diamonds? Even to this day it's considered cheap or stingy to buy your fiance a ring with a "fake" diamond on it. Why?

Why is digital artwork made with a stylus considered more valuable than artwork with generated imagery? It makes no sense to me. They are both just methods.

Should we shut down all assembly lines and only make things that are handcrafted because manufactured goods are "fake"?

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

A hammer is practical and it's worth the material that it was used to craft and ship to you as a costumer.

The value of a drawing is subjective and a lot of people consider the person who made it when they evaluate the piece , if something took a lots of effort to make , an artist has talents and made a name for himself people will commission the artist because they're interested in their works.

If all you need to create a whole Mona Lisa with an I.A is to type "please paint me a Mona Lisa" then it's the a.i that created the picture, everyone who can speak English can do it and these is no skills involved , why should you own it ? You just threw some dices and got a result.

The A.I is not just a tool it does the whole thing for you in a single step once you press enter.

I can open aseprites and draw with it ,this program got nothing which is automated beyond filling a shape with a flat color , what is created with it is mine because I made it , I drew the shapes and decided what color each pixel on the screen is and that is a completety different creating process.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Kamiyama님이 먼저 게시:

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋님이 먼저 게시:

Digital artwork made by humans are already protected by the laws , if A.I art is left out is because the human asking the A.I to create a picture is not considered to have created this picture unlike someone using a computer to draw with a pen or a mouse.

Works created with photoshop is art too. There is a human element to it, and the best photoshopped pictures require a certain amount of skill with the software.

https://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/

^ Did you know slenderman originated there? It was one of their events to photoshop a ghost or monster into an old photo. The one with slenderman in it became a meme.

It's bizarre that the author of that work won't ever receive credit "because it lacks a human element"

That's such BS. The DMCA is outdated.

AI artwork should also be protected. What matters is that the human author is able to bring their thing to market.

Does the suffering of making a thing make it more valuable? Now that we can make synthetic diamonds, why do people continue to pay for blood diamonds? Even to this day it's considered cheap or stingy to buy your fiance a ring with a "fake" diamond on it. Why?

Why is digital artwork made with a stylus considered more valuable than artwork with generated imagery? It makes no sense to me. They are both just methods.

Should we shut down all assembly lines and only make things that are handcrafted because manufactured goods are "fake"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man

""Copyright
Despite his folkloric qualities, the Slender Man is not in the public domain. Several for-profit ventures involving the Slender Man have unequivocally acknowledged Knudsen as the creator of this fictional character, while others were civilly blocked from distribution (including the Kickstarter-funded film) after legal complaints from Knudsen and other sources. Though Knudsen himself has given his personal blessing to a number of Slender Man-related projects, the issue is complicated by the fact that, while he is the character's creator, a third party holds the options to any adaptations into other media, including film and television. The identity of this option holder has not been made public.[13] Knudsen himself has argued that his enforcement of copyright has less to do with money than with artistic integrity: "I just want something amazing to come off it... something that's scary and disturbing and kinda different. I would hate for something to come out and just be kinda conventional."[62] In May 2016, the media rights to Slender Man were sold to production company Mythology Entertainment,[54] but the company split up in 2019, leaving the ownership of the character's rights in question.[64]""

now it is possible that his appearance is too simple and generic to be registered under a copyright since it's basically just a faceless men with a business suit without enough features to distinguish him as something unique.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Spencer님이 먼저 게시:

Boblin the Goblin님이 먼저 게시:

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.

It simulates work, many of the tools used by digital artists are automations, its why so much of their output looks similar.

Just watch some speed painting by various artists.

They aren't.

I use them. AI simulates literacy the whole process based on words. Using art programs still requires the person to actually draw, not just put in a few words.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Kamiyama님이 먼저 게시:

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋님이 먼저 게시:

Digital artwork made by humans are already protected by the laws , if A.I art is left out is because the human asking the A.I to create a picture is not considered to have created this picture unlike someone using a computer to draw with a pen or a mouse.

Works created with photoshop is art too. There is a human element to it, and the best photoshopped pictures require a certain amount of skill with the software.

https://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop-phriday/

^ Did you know slenderman originated there? It was one of their events to photoshop a ghost or monster into an old photo. The one with slenderman in it became a meme.

It's bizarre that the author of that work won't ever receive credit "because it lacks a human element"

That's such BS. The DMCA is outdated.

AI artwork should also be protected. What matters is that the human author is able to bring their thing to market.

Does the suffering of making a thing make it more valuable? Now that we can make synthetic diamonds, why do people continue to pay for blood diamonds? Even to this day it's considered cheap or stingy to buy your fiance a ring with a "fake" diamond on it. Why?

Why is digital artwork made with a stylus considered more valuable than artwork with generated imagery? It makes no sense to me. They are both just methods.

Should we shut down all assembly lines and only make things that are handcrafted because manufactured goods are "fake"?

Nah.

AI shouldn't be protected. You didn't create anything. Just typed in some words and a machine spit it out after scrapping copyrighted art.

[D. Flame]

Kamiyama님이 먼저 게시:

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Using a paint brush doesn't void copyright, but using AI does.

It's important to use correct terminology here. AI does not void copyright. AI works just aren't protected by the DMCA.

The DMCA was passed during the "oh my god people can create fake artwork with photoshop!?" craze in the early 2000's and was intended to prevent the internet from being flooded with "fake" digital artwork. The DMCA only protects artwork that has a human element to it.

For the record, all that digital artwork created with photoshop does have a human element to it, and so does AI generated artwork. A human being has to operate photoshop just like a human being has to operate an AI. You also get much better results if you are skilled and know how to use them.

The DMCA is archaic and was passed by scared judges who poorly understand digital art and were afraid of the fake art boogeyman. It's time that digital copyright laws get updated to provide protection for digital artworks.

Incorrect. If you make a book, write the text in the book yourself, but all the artwork in the book is done by AI, then you do not own copy right of that book. Only the text that you wrote. The use of AI to make the images voids copyright of that book, and someone could copy paste all of those images into a book with their own original text, and you would not be able to stop them.

[Utiviroo]

Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏님이 먼저 게시:

In the interim, (between then and now) there will be things that generative A.I. just can't do because it doesn't have any examples to refer to or train on, and so consequently, anything that a production team wants to make that is outside the scope of what the tool can generate, will need to be created manually by people at least once - which at least results in people doing more unique work with less repetition than ever before. ...but only if they're capable of doing very skilled work.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/10/is-china-pulling-ahead-in-ai-video-synthesis-we-put-minimax-to-the-test/

Seems to support where you are going, the AI does not currently understand relationships between interactions and virtual objects, still, but it is getting better at being consistent about some things.

It'll probably be a break through for game development, once movie and game production cross over. Perhaps one might one day watch what used to be TV series and somehow an AI can gameify it and have you insert your custom made character into the show, the next step of interactive movie and produce a believable interaction between you and the fictional members on the fly. (Bit like the Star Trek holodeck concept, without the VR hologram part.)

Also applies to ground up games only games, that are not meant to be a TV show or a streaming show, since the market has evolved that way.

I estimate (due to the convergence of multiple technologies accelerating inventive progress in multiple domains) that we might see AGI no sooner than in 7 years, possibly even that soon.

I do know they are trying to get AI to the point of at least being fluent/capable and effective, for maths at either undergraduate (Bachelors Degree) or post grad level (Masters) as in more efficient effective in supporting someone at PhD level maths, with their research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

I was in the 25+ year camp last year, this year I am in the 10-15 year camp. It might be good enough to be as effective as 100IQ type person. There isn't huge demand for 135+ IQ people, although IQ is a flawed scale.

If you mean super intelligence down to network effect, a mind hive of AI's all working towards a common goal, I think the limiting factor will be, the communication node problem, the complexity of synchronicity and coherence, without catastrophic failure because different parts of the network evolve at different rates and interpret things differently.

So I am in the 100 year camp for that, even in convergence scenarios.

What we humans already do, argue the meaning of words/intent, for no real reason beyond, we all learned to interpret reality as well as cause and effect differently; through the process of attaching different weight to words/actions.

It is probably the single biggest cause of conflict and slowing learning, beyond the purposeful gas-lighting with a view to cheat types that want to keep everything simple so they don't have to work hard to stay at the top, aka unreasonable people.

Would be interesting if AI learns to cheat, its one thing to manipulate at the behest of a human, its another if it just starts manipulating humans because that is what it thinks it is supposed to always do (since that is what it was taught), basically created a psychotic AI. Be very bad news for all of us, interesting but terrible.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/how-foreign-influence-campaigns-manipulate-your-social-media-feeds/

Not to derail the thread but... AI could easily be exploited to facilitate more stupid human behavior. It won't need super intelligence to do it, majority of people are some kind of stupid, which is a low hurdle to surpass.

[Firmament]

Aqoz aqimden sekeretérésfelq írnaq, mennen vemúsezeker. Vúgélven ís a sémésterem intelligentisém teqes „vemúsezeketet”