That definitely looks good, the only major issue, as usual with AI, is the fingers. I guess the left forearm might be a bit bigger than it should be too (but I'm nitpicking, might just be preference too), but it's actually really good overall.
Why so much hate toward AI art?
- Thread starter hkproduction
- Start date
Putting aside all the controversies on copyrights, I believe most of the hate comes from the natural human desire for authenticity. As the technology improves, so does the ability of the public to recognize and identify AI generated content. AI art will always feel false, cheap, manipulative even. It's much like cgi vs practical special effects. The former are overused and no matter how spectacular they get, they will always taste false. Practical effects cannot reach the same level of possibilities, yet they feel solid, real, and you can better sense the craft that was behind them. So, AI can be an amazing tool if used approprietly (and I'd say sparringly), otherwise all it will produce will be bloated messes.
It's better they tried and failed than to never try at all, and by god it's so easy to give up as soon as you feel like something isn't "perfect". Even easier to throw the towel before you even start. Mad respect to this guy for making something that looks awful. Don't be afraid to make something bad. Those are the first step towards learning.
The one thing I can't get over is the fact that the industry intentionally targeted visual art because the community had no means to defend itself. I do appreciate the new tool, but the way visual artits have been targeted and exploited is a travesty.
I'd argue that people, in general, do not give a damn about authenticity. They care more about utility and efficiency. If they truly care about authenticity, they would revert back to the hunting and gathering era, where they acquire food from the actual "organic" source in the jungles instead of buying mass-produced items.
This whole website is a testament to that. A good wank or fuck has nothing to do with looking at authenticity. They fuck whatever they want. Whether it is 2D boobs, 3D, big, flat, real, or fake, they will get the same erections based on the wiring of their brains. It has nothing to do with meeting a fucking the one true authentic lover for the purpose of fornication and kink. It is simply about having a quick and cheap (efficiency) fuck or wank (utility). Authenticity has nothing to do with it.
Their hate toward AI arts (to me) is a more fundamental and conservative nature of disliking changes. It is the same way old people hate modern genres of music and movies. An electronic and auto-tune like "Friday" by Jessica Black was criticized for using musical technology unfamiliar to the public at the time. Nowadays, Billie Eilish and Lil Nas X would just use the same tech and turn their products into "arts." It has nothing to do with authenticity. It is just people refusing to adapt to modernity.
Just like musicians have fine-tuned their methods of using those technologies, combined with a time of gradual exposure to produce cultural acceptance, AI art has yet to receive that treatment. It needs time and the right artists to fine-tune it into the public's consciousness.
Quick and cheap comes and goes, the authentic endures. Things done with love and effort will always outlast those done with greed and haste.
Not to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure a majority of the criticism for Friday was more about the overall quality of the song and not so much the use of autotune. Not saying she wasn't criticized for that, but it wasn't the primary reason by any means.
Quick and cheap have the purpose of building something that lasts, such as "authenticity." How much cheap mass-produced items, food, and media have you consumed to develop that "authentic" statement that will stay on the internet forever? How many authentic food, coffee, and burger joints have failed, whereas the cheap and quick fast food just as Mcdonald's and Starbucks still strive?
I am not against authenticity and originality. I value them and see the current form of AI as a potential nemesis of those ideals. But like a lie can permanently destroy a life, I think it is best that one must recognize the limitations of "authenticity." It is not as 'magical' as you like to believe, the same way that inauthenticity is not any less enduring than its counterpart.
I do not believe the hate toward AI stemmed from such an ideal of authenticity but rather from conservatism, just like every new technology before. People dislike and fear the drastic change the new technologies bring into their life.
Like my previous post, all of these criticisms, whether AI art is lifeless, not authentic, or lazy, are just history repeating itself. Sure, AI is a recent invention, but these criticisms have been made for every other invention and innovation, be it the camera, lawn mower, or microwave. Arguments like these are not breaking ground. They are "quick and cheap" arguments but also "enduring" ideals about any technological innovation that aims to delay the inevitable cultural adoption of the tech.
One relatable example is the Internet you are using to post these thoughts. Before its invention, we might have had to send letters, write a book, or talk to journalists to publicize our opinions. Now, we get to do that just by paying a small subscription to our internet provider, and we have access to a quick and cheap (efficient and utility) way to get our authentic thoughts across. Would you argue that emails, online forums, and text messages cannot convey authentic opinions and handwrite me a letter?
True. Auto-tune and its criticism were developed decades before Black. I can't remember the specific example, but Black was among the discussion and criticism I had long ago. So I use it from the top of my head (I probably remembered something completely different). I still think it serves the point that technological inventions require time for social acceptance and practice for ethical fine-tuning.
Last edited:
How so? If AI isn't as good, like you said (whic then the community is safe.
Love and effort are nice, but don't necessarily translate to quality. With the right tool something quick and cheap may better.
Quality is overestimated. In twenty years people will still watch the Room and Plan 9 from outer space. No one will watch Quantumania.
Autotune was originally just software used for pitch correction. Cher's "do you believe in love after love after love after..." was the first track that abused this tech by jacking up the settings (at least the first one to hit mainstream). Damn that shit was playing everywhere. And then it kinda faded from memory (at least as far as I remember) until T-Pain. It became so prevalent at this time, and this was when the criticism of autotune artists being talentless hacks really took off. Rebecca Black was way later. In fact, I don't even remember Friday being known for autotune. It was just a shitty song that got meme status and became famous.
But to tie this history lesson back into topic, look at T-Pain. He was chastised so much for abusing autotune, and most people assumed he couldn't sing for shit. We now know that he was always a great singer. He used autotune as a tool to come up with his signature sound. And he was making bank, being featured on every rap album.
So yea, autotune can make people who can't sing sound ok, and AI can let non-artists make some art. But people with real talent in those fields will be the ones that can take the tools and create something that stands out. In 10 years, it will be just another tool like photoshop, synthesizer, or even the camera.
Last edited:
- Sep 25, 2021
- 498
- 1,092
I love Gate keeping, Gate Keeping is the best thing that ever happened to the metal scene. It keeps shit Metalcore and what not bands out of my festivals.
If the "Art Community" does it now it is one of the best things that can ever happen really.
- Sep 25, 2021
- 498
- 1,092
Well if that is true that means there is enough disinterest and backlash against AI "Art" that people find it wise to try to bypass the tag, I would consider that a good thing.
And as someone else said the people doing it will be probably ousted sooner or later.
- Sep 25, 2021
- 498
- 1,092
Pretty much that that, now that a lot of sites like DLSite have clamped down or let you filter AI art I'm not bothered as much anymore as I am not swamped with same looky no effort stuff(well at least much less)
I actually also see now that there is some use for the AI technology to ease tedious tasks like backgrounds and such.
As long as the Command prompt "Art" goes away it's all good.
- Sep 25, 2021
- 498
- 1,092
While that image of course looks good it still has that samey AI look AI had month ago. The exact look DLSite and such got swamped with, I see no real progress.(Ai Checker gives it a 99% probability too)
Mind if I ask what you touched up ?
Nothing. This is pure unedited AI-generated image. By the way could you point me to some decent quality AI-generated content on DLSite? I have problem searching the site.
Artificial intelligence art can be beautiful and innovative, but it feels unnatural and fake. People will put in more effort, and their work will look better. Hatreds may also decline if artificial intelligence develops human-like creativity.
- Sep 25, 2021
- 498
- 1,092
Oh sorry I thought you touched it up my bad.
DLSite doesn't allow the sale of Ai generated Images anymore, at least at the moment.
The only thing they allow is Partial AI for games and such, so backgrounds and stuff.
You must be registered to see the links
That is a pic of a bundle I bought for under a Buck back in December. Before it got flooded and well it pretty average.It's hard to explain but the lightning and picture style is always very similar I find with AI, I guess that is because of what is "trained" on.
I think the best initial use for ai art would be slg type games. Tbh it can already be used in most scenarios with controlnet, especially when realizing that most indie porn games don’t have art at that level