Why so much hate toward AI art?

[Knox_xx]

Just asking. I saw some games with AI art posted in f95 and most of them receive a lot of hate from bystander.

Why though? Is it because people lost part of their soul when their fap to stuffs generated by AI overlord?

1 because its not gonna benefit anyone other than the company behind the AI
"oh you want to make art ? too bad you not gonna compete with the AI that can generate 1000 images in a second, so better pay up $20 a month to use the AI"
"Oh you wanna buy art ? dont waste your time with these loser artists, use our AI for only $20 a month."


artists gonna lose their jobby the mass, and consummer will be limited to only using products from these AI companies
I'm not against the AI techonology it self, just these companies,if these companies really want to "democratizing" art as they advertise they are doing, then AI should be completely free and accessible, but thats clearly not what they are after

 

[baloneysammich]

it just scours through all the training data

Strictly speaking this isn't true though. It no longer has access to the actual training data, just whatever you want to call the diffused model/checkpoint. Not entirely unlike a human drawing something from memory*. Though a human can do his damnedest to duplicate something while looking right at it and still claim the result as his own.

* And speaking of memory, ask a human who's never seen a duck to draw one...

 

[Winterfire]

1 because its not gonna benefit anyone other than the company behind the AI
"oh you want to make art ? too bad you not gonna compete with the AI that can generate 1000 images in a second, so better pay up $20 a month to use the AI"
"Oh you wanna buy art ? dont waste your time with these loser artists, use our AI for only $20 a month."


artists gonna lose their jobby the mass, and consummer will be limited to only using products from these AI companies
I'm not against the AI techonology it self, just these companies,if these companies really want to "democratizing" art as they advertise they are doing, then AI should be completely free and accessible, but thats clearly not what they are after

You are so completely wrong on that though. That is what happens when you get your knowledge straight out of twitter

Artists will never be replaced, the same way as web developers weren't replaced when software like frontpage and similar started appearing. Whether you like it or not, AI is already part of some software artists use, such as Photoshop.
Aside from the copyright stuff Meaning Less mentioned, even if this was not a concern, there are things only Artists can do and AI will never be able to replicate, no matter how good it gets.

The only thing AI does is making art more accessible to other people who are not talented artistically.
However, you still need to put work to make something good, even the cherry picked examples have some issues if you analyze an image long enough, you simply cannot use them as-is in a project, even if copyright was not an issue.

 

[Winterfire]

Strictly speaking this isn't true though. It no longer has access to the actual training data, just whatever you want to call the diffused model/checkpoint. Not entirely unlike a human drawing something from memory*. Though a human can do his damnedest to duplicate something while looking right at it and still claim the result as his own.

* And speaking of memory, ask a human who's never seen a duck to draw one...

Yeah, the images are never referenced or stored. You can tell it doesn't take bits and pieces from the way it generates, starting from a sea of noise and working from there.
However, what Meaning Less meant is that the only fact that images are used at some point, even for training, is a copyright breach.

 

[Pr0GamerJohnny]

1 because its not gonna benefit anyone other than the company behind the AI
"oh you want to make art ? too bad you not gonna compete with the AI that can generate 1000 images in a second, so better pay up $20 a month to use the AI"
"Oh you wanna buy art ? dont waste your time with these loser artists, use our AI for only $20 a month."


artists gonna lose their jobby the mass, and consummer will be limited to only using products from these AI companies
I'm not against the AI techonology it self, just these companies,if these companies really want to "democratizing" art as they advertise they are doing, then AI should be completely free and accessible, but thats clearly not what they are after

Exactly, and underneath it all this is the core of my objection to many automation technologies. Are those that cheerlead them really so short-sighted to not see where this is leading?

Are they not old and wise enough to have heard these platitudes before about "Oh, this is different, this will lift everyone up instead of concentrating wealth"?

Whether it's creative or produces good art or makes unique works is one topic of conversation, another is "Is all of this good for us?" It's certainly good for those at the top of the food chain.

 

[subatomicweasel]

Except that's not how it works.
I will never understand why people always get this point wrong when google is accessible to everybody and it takes only a few minutes of search to know how something works.

I will give that you can make remixed work with AI (Which are the only examples ever used for arguments against AI art), but that's just one of the many uses.

I apologize, but that was my understanding. The AI is trained on images and then draws upon those images when the prompts are given. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that it basically creates an image from what it was trained on. My logic went that it's taking bits and pieces from existing images to make the new one, so maybe I misunderstood the process or I chose the wrong word when I said remix.

As for Googling it, Google has been increasingly frustrating to use ever since people figured out how to game their algorithms. I do a search for "nsfw ai art generator paid subscription" and I get half a dozen articles from mainstream commentators and then three dozen spam links. It's not the be all and end all of search engines that it used to be.

 

[Pr0GamerJohnny]

I apologize, but that was my understanding. The AI is trained on images and then draws upon those images when the prompts are given. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that it basically creates an image from what it was trained on. My logic went that it's taking bits and pieces from existing images to make the new one, so maybe I misunderstood the process or I chose the wrong word when I said remix.

As for Googling it, Google has been increasingly frustrating to use ever since people figured out how to game their algorithms. I do a search for "nsfw ai art generator paid subscription" and I get half a dozen articles from mainstream commentators and then three dozen spam links. It's not the be all and end all of search engines that it used to be.

Yes, google is getting more useless by the year.

Anyways, you're correct - it uses bits and pieces of from existing images when it checks its own accuracy in the feedback loop.

All these programs are is simply a filtering machine which tries different inputs, passes them through a filter, then checks the result against an existing image, compares, then adjusts the filter.


As a very simplified example, say a program is meant to generate a human face, so it starts by saying "I think there's a tan pixel at x=100, y=100, with an HSV of 34,33,82 . My filter says its neighbors must be within 2 shades hue: 32 < H < 36 - lets try a value of 33 for its neighbors. The program then compares that to a real image, noting the real image's pixel at that location has neighbors with an average of 3 shades of hue difference. It plugs that back into its own filter, and tries again with the new numbers, and then compares again. It does this again and again with many different real images to try and adjust its filters to produce the best replications.

So no, it's not neccesarily "starting" from an existing image, but without existing images to provide feedback, the whole process wouldn't work.

As Woody554 summarized well earlier in the thread, there's no actual "thinking" going on as we would understand it, it's just iterating and interpolating, again and again and again. "Artifical intelligence" is kind of a misnomer, I'd call it more data processing, analysis, and interpolation.

 

[Winterfire]

I apologize, but that was my understanding. The AI is trained on images and then draws upon those images when the prompts are given. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that it basically creates an image from what it was trained on. My logic went that it's taking bits and pieces from existing images to make the new one, so maybe I misunderstood the process or I chose the wrong word when I said remix.

It is trained on images, and possibly even copyrighted ones, however it does not store those images nor references them.
Think of it like that: A child has no idea of what a "Cat" is, you show the child 50 images of cats, and through those images the child learns that the cat has fur, it has two ears, it has two eyes, it has a cute nose, and so on.
That "Data" then lets the AI create a new unique cat when asked, it refers to the data (the things it learnt) but the images are never stored or referenced again, so it doesn't take "bits and pieces" off it.

In fact, if you look at the generation steps, it doesn't start with pieces of photos here and there, but it starts as noise and slowly shapes into the image you asked for.

 

[peterppp]

now, it could be claimed that our brain is doing the exact same thing, and partly that would be true. except that it isn't, and our brain is doing something weird called 'thinking' in addition to it, and we have no clue whatsoever where that 'thinking' part comes from. (it's not 'soul' though). even the aforementioned basic model of how nnets classify we kinda ran into by accident, and we don't really know what happens to the weights inside the nnet.

I mean we know of course how we're adjusting the weights, but we don't understand the emergent content of it. in other words, we can't 'read' the 'thought' from the neurons even though we know exactly their state and how we adjusted them. we just treat it as a 'black box' and wait for the output at the other end.

one day we'll definitely crack it, because it's no magic and there's no 'soul' involved in any of it. but today we don't really have a clue where to even begin.

you say our brains and nnets are different, but you describe how they are the same. we don't understand the 'thinking' part of either of them, but if we can understand nnets one day, we can understand our brains one day too. it's not magic.

All these programs are is simply a filtering machine which tries different inputs, passes them through a filter, then checks the result against an existing image, compares, then adjusts the filter.

you're describing how to train the AI, not how it generates the images to the end user

everyone who knows anything knows AI is just a term. no need to point out it's not thinking like a human. WE KNOW duh

 

[Laikhent]

for anyone interested in having an idea of how these art AIs works:

You must be registered to see the links

It can generate images that do not exist in the trained data through interpolation, extrapolation, and generalization.

I guess artists have some right to be upset that their work contributed, without their consent, to make something that competes with them. At least the new version of stable diffusion ignores prompt words that allowed the user to choose a certain author's style for the output.

 

[Deleted member 2741424]

I just created this in about 10 minutes of fiddling around (still learning how to use Stable Diffusion). Not sure how anyone could hate this...

 

[Pr0GamerJohnny]

I just created this in about 10 minutes of fiddling around (still learning how to use Stable Diffusion). Not sure how anyone could hate this...

View attachment 2481250

Ummmmm should I tell him or should you??

 

[pepplez]

Ummmmm should I tell him or should you??

Let an AI answer him

 

[Deleted member 2741424]

Let an AI answer him

View attachment 2482285

Look guys - I'm old, and your wit is lost on me. No clue what you're getting at, so how about you just tell me using words? Thanks!

 

[Pr0GamerJohnny]

Look guys - I'm old, and your wit is lost on me. No clue what you're getting at, so how about you just tell me using words? Thanks!

Apologies. Nothing mean spirited was intended. I did not find that generated art attractive, but I'm also probably not the best judge because I don't go for the voluptuous big boobs/big lips etc look.

 

[pepplez]

Look guys - I'm old, and your wit is lost on me. No clue what you're getting at, so how about you just tell me using words? Thanks!

This AI generated person has an anatomically incorrect skeleton. Also, she seems to have received plastic surgery by having her ribs removed because her body looks like she is wearing a corset.


Maybe this is a new fetish, because you can see such deformed women again and again. That aside, I wanted to generate a female person blushing with charm from the above AI, that is just as wrong as shown above. There is no reason to be angry, your age doesn't matter either. A joke is a joke and should be understood as such, or not.

 

[Deleted member 2741424]

Apologies. Nothing mean spirited was intended. I did not find that generated art attractive, but I'm also probably not the best judge because I don't go for the voluptuous big boobs/big lips etc look.

LOL, thank you for the clarification. I didn't take it that way - I just wasn't sure what I was missing. Anywho, I appreciate the reply. Remember - variety is the spice of life. PLUS - I'm a complete novice with the program, so based on my absolute lack of knowledge/skill, I am happy with the results. More practice will just make everything better over time.

 

[Deleted member 2741424]

This AI generated person has an anatomically incorrect skeleton. Also, she seems to have received plastic surgery by having her ribs removed because her body looks like she is wearing a corset.
View attachment 2483015

Maybe this is a new fetish, because you can see such deformed women again and again. That aside, I wanted to generate a female person blushing with charm from the above AI, that is just as wrong as shown above. There is no reason to be angry, your age doesn't matter either. A joke is a joke and should be understood as such, or not.

Angry? Sorry if I came off that way, as that wasn't my intention. I was actually scratching my head and laughing about it. I honestly thought I was just missing something that was obvious, but I knew it was in there somewhere. We're all good

Thank you for the reply!

 

[Winterfire]

Anyway, despite all the artists crying on twitter, AI is here to stay and evolve. Adobe (aside from some of their softwares already having AI such as photoshop) are now taking a slice of the pie with firefly:

You must be registered to see the links

tbh looks a lot more clean and easy to use than current software.

 

[sweet marika]

I think the worst thing about AI is copywriters, artists and designers who actually make their own stuff. It can put them out of business. It's sad, but some of the AI work is really great.