Why so much hate toward AI art?

[SenMizeri]

Guess I'll just get new hands. fuck my undexterous hands. Guess since I am new and have no connections, guess that's it. Game over. I don't deserve to make a game. Not like I could help my birth complications, but that's my fault. Oh well.

(Fuck anyone whom has no other means/method for doing art. Guess I'm fucked. Thanks a lot.

It's funny how big some people act over the internet when they're behind a screen typing on a keyboard isn't it?

People will always pay for the real thing, but what they won't pay for once AI art gets going, is mediocre work. What's the point, when AI could do a much better job and for cheaper?

I think he's threatened by this, if he is an artist. I can understand, and care for an artist in that position, but I don't care much for his arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Glib_Gentleman]

I'll throw in my two cents. I see AI generated art (any kind: pictures, music, narrative text) as a problem because it breaks one of the fundamental rules of artistic creation: not everyone can do it. It devalues skill and effort. Art has value because it is not a necessity, it's vanity (of the good kind!), and it's not quantitative, it's qualitative. Also, it's born out of context and environment. When you strip all these factors, all you obtain a homogeneous blob.

That, my friend, is called "gate keeping". It is something the artistic community has done for a long time.

Indeed, before, "not everyone could do it". Artistic pursuits historically have been a luxury that required time, privilege, and patronage to progress.

Artists, if they show any aptitude for it, are told from the time they are children that they are "special". I've long said that artists are the children who never stopped drawing, because all children draw. Most stop. But not artists. But regardless, artists are used to being told they have a special talent, to hearing the awed phrase from people - "That's amazing! I could NEVER do that!"

Artists have always enjoyed being part of a special "gated group of specials" and they've even historically tried to prevent new people from entering that group. Look at the history of salons and their rejection of innovation and creativity. Or the modern art scene, where it is more WHO you know, and not what you do.

They are upset that AI technology has essentially torn down the wall around their garden and is allowing the stinking masses to enjoy the roses. "I had to PROVE myself to get in here!"

But don't worry, artists will come up with new walls and new gatekeeping methods. They always do.

(Source: I'm an artist - an actual, "oh, my god, he paid for art school" artist with a degree in the subject and years spent drawing, painting, and sculpting in a collective group with other artists. I just never drank the "we're special snowflakes" kool-aid.)

Also, I know that current AI algorithms are "not good enough" yet. But there is enough incentive to improve them, and I'm sure they will improve. And that's even worse, because being able to generate an infinite number of masterpieces (for an arbitrary definition of one) in a few minutes deprives them of all their uniqueness and value.

Yep. Economics.

But I'll say that if AI produces "masterpieces" that can't be distinguished from human generated "masterpieces", it's fair. Artists will just have to adapt, like they did with the invention of the camera. Some artists freaked out, others recognized it as a tool to increase their productivity and improve their work flow. There even developed a new class of artists - photographers, who understood and excelled at pushing the new medium.

I also know that AI algorithms are simply tools to an end: if you use them to create images and you keep them for yourself, good for you. If an artist uses them to improve himself, good for him. But there is no way to draw a line on their use, and ensure a limit on the distribution of the content they generate, so this point is basically moot.

Some things to remember here:

It is preached CONSTANTLY that being an artist just means being a creative person who is compelled to create convey some sort of message. That's why weirdos who nail bananas to walls, strew trash on the floor, or masturbate on plexiglass in front of a crowd (all real art museum pieces that earned the artists tens of thousands of dollars), all get to claim the title.

"Normal" people are going to use AI art a few times as a novel gag, and move on, except maybe when they want a picture for their Sunday church bulletin or annual BBQ invite. But there will be a group of these "normal" people, who will use the AI and BE artists. Because creating will consume them. They'll constantly try for better results. They'll sit at work and ponder what image to generate when they get home. They'll work out how to use the AI to get closer and closer to that thing in their head.

They'll BECOME artists. Because AI art still takes intentionality. Everyone with real curiosity on this and not an instant knee-jerk reaction, should look at the Stable Diffusion sub-reddit. Look for posts with workflow included, or look up Youtube videos of people showing their AI workflow. Because you'll find, for ARTISTS (whether they had that title before AI came along or not), it is indeed a WORKflow.

There are tools now for them to create poses, define facial expressions, which way the head is turned. Composition - what the AI generates and where it generates it (segmentation) - put a chair here, a picture here, a lamp here, a patch of grass here, etc. They have to determine style by the model they select, the LORAs they add on, the prompt words they use and in what order. They don't just accept what the AI gives them. They "inpaint" it. They point at little areas and say "AI, redo this area, but with these instructions". They may do that MANY times. Then many will take that picture into an image editor and hand edit it - take out this and that, move that, fix this and that. Then they'll upscale it, fix it some more, and then post it.

And you know what? Even if all some of them are doing is making pictures of beautiful naked women . . . so what? There have been thousands of traditional artists who do nothing but paint or draw pictures of beautiful naked women over and over again, and no one accuses them of not being artists due to their "lack of creativity". But there are AI artists who are doing much more creative things - a series of selfies with historical figures, each image taking them a whole day to produce.

And traditional artists' arguments against AI will continue to fall away. Plagiarism? New AI models are being trained entirely on opensource art and pictures, or from images the company owns all the rights to. See Adobe's Firefly, which will be in Photoshop and used by Google's Bard AI for image generation. No copyright infringement there.

Though I still believe that what the AI does is STYLE COPYING, which is NOT copyright-able. Artists that have videos of them collecting "reference" using PureRef for their digital drawings, and will draw Spider-Man in the style of The Simpsons, but will unironically accuse AI artists of "stealing" from "real" artists by having the AI generate an image of a Disney Princess in the style of Norman Rockwell.

If artists succeed in some way (they won't) of getting copyright law changed to protect STYLES, they will be fucking themselves.



To tie all this back around - artists are people who care about the images they create, and are creating them with a message. That includes AI artists.

Does a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible AI art deserve some derision? Sure. But no more than a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible default DAZ models with terrible lighting and renders made by screenshotting the application.

A good image is going to be a good image - whether it was made with a camera, a pencil, a brush, or an AI. We haven't even wrapped around to a full year since the introduction of this tech to the public. And the difference in the quality of the AI images in just 8 months is ASTOUNDING.

So for anyone being derisive of the tech, I want you to think about what that means for where it will be in 5 years or a decade. I will tell you want will happen - there will be a new generation of artists that grow up with this tech, who are using it now as kids, who will use it make images expressing their angsts and desires when they are teens, and who will be producing outstanding art with it when they become young adults, all without the hang-ups towards the tech the previous generation had. It's what happened with digital art.

And in 5 years (or less) I predict this forum won't give a shit about AI art being in games. The forum will only care if the art is good. "Oh, shit. Finally a game with good HoneySelect/DAZ/AI art!"

(And finally, I find it humorous that so many on a supposed piracy website give a shit about AI art possibly infringing on copyright by copying the "style" of an artist.)

 

[Daxter250]

stop drinking so much god damn coffee!

*proceeds to slurp coffee while ranting

 

[FlemManiac]

That, my friend, is called "gate keeping". It is something the artistic community has done for a long time.

Indeed, before, "not everyone could do it". Artistic pursuits historically have been a luxury that required time, privilege, and patronage to progress.

Artists, if they show any aptitude for it, are told from the time they are children that they are "special". I've long said that artists are the children who never stopped drawing, because all children draw. Most stop. But not artists. But regardless, artists are used to being told they have a special talent, to hearing the awed phrase from people - "That's amazing! I could NEVER do that!"

Artists have always enjoyed being part of a special "gated group of specials" and they've even historically tried to prevent new people from entering that group. Look at the history of salons and their rejection of innovation and creativity. Or the modern art scene, where it is more WHO you know, and not what you do.

They are upset that AI technology has essentially torn down the wall around their garden and is allowing the stinking masses to enjoy the roses. "I had to PROVE myself to get in here!"

But don't worry, artists will come up with new walls and new gatekeeping methods. They always do.

(Source: I'm an artist - an actual, "oh, my god, he paid for art school" artist with a degree in the subject and years spent drawing, painting, and sculpting in a collective group with other artists. I just never drank the "we're special snowflakes" kool-aid.)


Yep. Economics.

But I'll say that if AI produces "masterpieces" that can't be distinguished from human generated "masterpieces", it's fair. Artists will just have to adapt, like they did with the invention of the camera. Some artists freaked out, others recognized it as a tool to increase their productivity and improve their work flow. There even developed a new class of artists - photographers, who understood and excelled at pushing the new medium.


Some things to remember here:

It is preached CONSTANTLY that being an artist just means being a creative person who is compelled to create convey some sort of message. That's why weirdos who nail bananas to walls, strew trash on the floor, or masturbate on plexiglass in front of a crowd (all real art museum pieces that earned the artists tens of thousands of dollars), all get to claim the title.

"Normal" people are going to use AI art a few times as a novel gag, and move on, except maybe when they want a picture for their Sunday church bulletin or annual BBQ invite. But there will be a group of these "normal" people, who will use the AI and BE artists. Because creating will consume them. They'll constantly try for better results. They'll sit at work and ponder what image to generate when they get home. They'll work out how to use the AI to get closer and closer to that thing in their head.

They'll BECOME artists. Because AI art still takes intentionality. Everyone with real curiosity on this and not an instant knee-jerk reaction, should look at the Stable Diffusion sub-reddit. Look for posts with workflow included, or look up Youtube videos of people showing their AI workflow. Because you'll find, for ARTISTS (whether they had that title before AI came along or not), it is indeed a WORKflow.

There are tools now for them to create poses, define facial expressions, which way the head is turned. Composition - what the AI generates and where it generates it (segmentation) - put a chair here, a picture here, a lamp here, a patch of grass here, etc. They have to determine style by the model they select, the LORAs they add on, the prompt words they use and in what order. They don't just accept what the AI gives them. They "inpaint" it. They point at little areas and say "AI, redo this area, but with these instructions". They may do that MANY times. Then many will take that picture into an image editor and hand edit it - take out this and that, move that, fix this and that. Then they'll upscale it, fix it some more, and then post it.

And you know what? Even if all some of them are doing is making pictures of beautiful naked women . . . so what? There have been thousands of traditional artists who do nothing but paint or draw pictures of beautiful naked women over and over again, and no one accuses them of not being artists due to their "lack of creativity". But there are AI artists who are doing much more creative things - a series of selfies with historical figures, each image taking them a whole day to produce.

And traditional artists' arguments against AI will continue to fall away. Plagiarism? New AI models are being trained entirely on opensource art and pictures, or from images the company owns all the rights to. See Adobe's Firefly, which will be in Photoshop and used by Google's Bard AI for image generation. No copyright infringement there.

Though I still believe that what the AI does is STYLE COPYING, which is NOT copyright-able. Artists that have videos of them collecting "reference" using PureRef for their digital drawings, and will draw Spider-Man in the style of The Simpsons, but will unironically accuse AI artists of "stealing" from "real" artists by having the AI generate an image of a Disney Princess in the style of Norman Rockwell.

If artists succeed in some way (they won't) of getting copyright law changed to protect STYLES, they will be fucking themselves.



To tie all this back around - artists are people who care about the images they create, and are creating them with a message. That includes AI artists.

Does a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible AI art deserve some derision? Sure. But no more than a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible default DAZ models with terrible lighting and renders made by screenshotting the application.

A good image is going to be a good image - whether it was made with a camera, a pencil, a brush, or an AI. We haven't even wrapped around to a full year since the introduction of this tech to the public. And the difference in the quality of the AI images in just 8 months is ASTOUNDING.

So for anyone being derisive of the tech, I want you to think about what that means for where it will be in 5 years or a decade. I will tell you want will happen - there will be a new generation of artists that grow up with this tech, who are using it now as kids, who will use it make images expressing their angsts and desires when they are teens, and who will be producing outstanding art with it when they become young adults, all without the hang-ups towards the tech the previous generation had. It's what happened with digital art.

And in 5 years (or less) I predict this forum won't give a shit about AI art being in games. The forum will only care if the art is good. "Oh, shit. Finally a game with good HoneySelect/DAZ/AI art!"

(And finally, I find it humorous that so many on a supposed piracy website give a shit about AI art possibly infringing on copyright by copying the "style" of an artist.)

Are artists suppose to be elitist gatekeepers or starving hobos? pick a consistent stereotype already.

Also you talk a lot of smack about gatekeeping and elitism when you yourself are an elitist.

90% of artists make below minimum wage and humans have been drawing since the cavemen era the only people who say art is gatekept are the very people gatekeeping art such as yourself. Might I ask how much did the degree cost? cause clearly we lowly infidels have been gifted by the supreme presence of a nepo-baby.

 

[Glib_Gentleman]

Are artists suppose to be elitist gatekeepers or starving hobos? pick a consistent stereotype already.

You know, they can be both.

Those artists kept outside by the gatekeepers are the starving ones, and those who make it inside the walled garden become the gatekeepers.

But I have observed many of those starving artists climbing the ladder to success are awfully upset at those climbing the rungs below them - not limited to the art field, but there are many who love to use a ladder to climb to their heights of success and then kick the ladder away from the edge.

Also you talk a lot of smack about gatekeeping and elitism when you yourself are an elitist.

Yeah, I'm undoubtedly privileged.

But I've also never gatekept. Unlike people who say artists are born "talented", I've always maintained that anyone can become an artist, just through attitude and determination and a desire to be creative.

90% of artists make below minimum wage and humans have been drawing since the cavemen era the only people who say art is gatekept are the very people gatekeeping art such as yourself.

Exactly. So how is AI art changing anything? Most artists will still be starving, even AI artists.

But a lot of artists "feed" on being special. That's their one comfort with their art. They may not make much of anything off of it, but the act of being able to do it makes them "special" - "talented" - "a genius".

And to your caveman analogy - yeah. I wander what blowback the first artists to use bought pencils or charcoal faced? "You don't select the right wood, and burn your own charcoal? How can you call yourself a real artist if you don't know how to do that?"

Might I ask how much did the degree cost? cause clearly we lowly infidels have been gifted by the supreme presence of a nepo-baby.

Too much is how much it cost. But the military G.I. Bill covered the cost for me. So I essentially traded years as an infantry Marine for an art degree.

I should be more upset than anyone about AI art right? But I'm not. I'm over here arguing for it's acceptance, and to treat the people using it as artists themselves.

You are the one clutching your pearls. You're an artist. You feel threatened. I'm an artist too, and I'm telling you not to feel threatened.

One thing that degree gave me was years of studying art history, and I'm telling you that AI art is a big sea change, no doubt, but it is not a biblical flood that will wipe away everything. Not if you embrace it as a tool.

Aaron Blaise, former Disney artist on such titles as Beauty and the Beast, had a great comparison. He discussed how when they introduced digital drawing, he resisted, held on to his pencil for as long as possible. But then he accepted it, began using a tablet, and became even more productive. He views his earlier resistance to the technology as silly.

He also gives another example, where he and other traditional animators did not like, and did not respect, computer animators when they arrived on the scene. They didn't know how to animate on paper! They just played with dials and numbers and the computers did the inbetweening work for them! They weren't REAL animators. Except, he admits now, they were, and are. And they employ some of the same techniques that traditional animators do, with knowledge of weight, timing, squash and stretch, etc. They were introducing a whole new artistic medium - 3D animation. It replaced 2D for a while, but 2D game back, and now the best parts of both are often combined together to great effect.

He himself using computer animation to assist him in his films now, to let him do more ambitious things he couldn't attempt before, or to free him up to focus his energy on the important parts he cares about.

And Blaise ended his talk by telling artists that what he learned from his 30 years at Disney was that AI will not replace artists' jobs. But what WILL happen is an ARTIST using AI will replace your job if you refuse to adapt.

 

[VegitoHlove]

You know people, people love to complain about copyright (On a piracy forum no less), may an artist, let's say does heavily inspired work but of course there is a thing called "fair use".

It's amazing how any and all principals of fair use go out the window continently when it comes to AI Art. I also quite frankly believe that some people hate the whole AI deal because it's trendy to do so.

 

[Cwovictor]

For all the shit AI art gets, and deserves, nothing will ever stop you from doing art yourself. Nothing. Maybe you'll get paid less. Maybe it won't reach as far. Possibly, I don't know. But your hands are there. You can do any game you want using AI or not. It's not an existential threat.

 

[FlemManiac]

You know, they can be both.

Those artists kept outside by the gatekeepers are the starving ones, and those who make it inside the walled garden become the gatekeepers.

But I have observed many of those starving artists climbing the ladder to success are awfully upset at those climbing the rungs below them - not limited to the art field, but there are many who love to use a ladder to climb to their heights of success and then kick the ladder away from the edge.

So the solution is to fuck over said Hobo artists even more? Ai art doesn't help artists, the ways it could help artists we already had the tools for, the only thing it does for Hobo artists is force them to compete against their own art.

Wanna know who benefits the most out of Ai generated content? Billion dollar tech companies and their share holders who most likely are the Elite gatekeepers you oh so hate. Sure you didn't drink their koolaid initially so instead you just drank another brand.

You are the one clutching your pearls. You're an artist. You feel threatened. I'm an artist too, and I'm telling you not to feel threatened.

One thing that degree gave me was years of studying art history, and I'm telling you that AI art is a big sea change, no doubt, but it is not a biblical flood that will wipe away everything. Not if you embrace it as a tool.

Aaron Blaise, former Disney artist on such titles as Beauty and the Beast, had a great comparison. He discussed how when they introduced digital drawing, he resisted, held on to his pencil for as long as possible. But then he accepted it, began using a tablet, and became even more productive. He views his earlier resistance to the technology as silly.

He also gives another example, where he and other traditional animators did not like, and did not respect, computer animators when they arrived on the scene. They didn't know how to animate on paper! They just played with dials and numbers and the computers did the inbetweening work for them! They weren't REAL animators. Except, he admits now, they were, and are. And they employ some of the same techniques that traditional animators do, with knowledge of weight, timing, squash and stretch, etc. They were introducing a whole new artistic medium - 3D animation. It replaced 2D for a while, but 2D game back, and now the best parts of both are often combined together to great effect.

He himself using computer animation to assist him in his films now, to let him do more ambitious things he couldn't attempt before, or to free him up to focus his energy on the important parts he cares about.

And Blaise ended his talk by telling artists that what he learned from his 30 years at Disney was that AI will not replace artists' jobs. But what WILL happen is an ARTIST using AI will replace your job if you refuse to adapt.

"Adapt or die" that's a juicy one. Have you ever heard of the luddites? I'm sure you have it's considered an insult among your group. Now the mainstream perception around them is an extreme terrorist group that hated that new technology threatened their strangle hold on the market. But in reality they were a group of craftsmen who ADAPTED to the industrial revolution while others were starving on the streets they adapted to the factories and joined the ranks, but ah there was an issue every day they were losing leg and limb, being forced to overwork to the point of collapse, and the cherry on top they were getting paid a fraction of their original salary how the hell were they suppose to feed themselves? let alone their entire family.
So they did the only thing they could they asked for better working conditions and better pay of which the factory owners could easily afford but of course you're a smart pumpkin we both know that wouldn't happen SO they were fired and replaced by the army of desperate, dying of starvation masses. one thing lead to another and said craftsmen decided to do the unspeakable act of rebelling BY! breaking the equipment these factories needed to run... Of course they were arrested the companies then pressured the government to make said crime punishable by death. Voila desperate workers and craftsmen dead and buried and completely demonized for the crime of wanting to not only survive but live.

Now you know how the saying goes "learn from our history or be doomed to repeat it!" now of course we're not in an exact replica of the situation no in our case it's much more clean and simple the "factories" that are Ai generated images literally require the stolen works of artists to function. And before you go on about "IT LEARNS LIKE A HUMAN" no it fucking doesn't it just mixes and matches and than uses the previous manmade drawings in it's database not as Jpegs but as lines of transformed code to make sure what it drew is at least passable.
And various regulatory bodies around the world agree with that, at least on the it doesn't learn like a human part, From the FTC to the European Ai Act.

Now I don't see why I have a reason to clutch my precious pearls when there's a high chance that all these Ai generative tools will be completely gone and banned in a year or two.

But I will end this with a question, and that is. Why are you so adamant on defending the theft and laziness that is Ai art on a pirating site? people who steal DAZ models don't try and defend their actions same with Koik. If you wanna be a lazy thief just fucking steal and stop trying to justify the action, with silly shit like "Democratization" "Taking power from elitist artists".

 

[Hadley]

The only people that shit on art are people that think they are going to get replaced.

I dont think AI is ready yet to fully replace artists.

 

[SenMizeri]

The only people that shit on art are people that think they are going to get replaced.

I dont think AI is ready yet to fully replace artists.

I don't think it ever will fully. Look at how music has developed, and how musicians who are into the "old way" of doing things.

I remember watching a documentary about Depeche Mode, who used to mix in Industrial and Synth to their music. The Rock industry used to snub them as soulless pop in the 80's, yet Depeche Mode were onto something and using the new tech to expand art. Yeah, it was "easier" to make such music, so is Rock to Orchestra, but the instrument itself is not the art, it's the person behind it who makes art.

Art is a form of self-expression, it's inherently human.

 

[Glib_Gentleman]

"Adapt or die" that's a juicy one. Have you ever heard of the luddites?

Yeah. They resisted adapting. They died. Don't see them around or doing so well, today, do you?

Now I don't see why I have a reason to clutch my precious pearls when there's a high chance that all these Ai generative tools will be completely gone and banned in a year or two.

Did you, or did you not, just claim that "Billion dollar tech companies and their share holders" are the ones who stand the most to gain from this tech? And you think they are going to let governments ban it?

Or better yet - you think governments CAN ban it? It fits on flashdrives. It can now run off phones. It is open source code in the wild. The "genie is out of the bottle", "Pandora's Box is open", the "horses have left the barn", feel free to insert your favorite phrase here, but they all mean the same thing. It's too late.

And you think the U.S. and Europe are going to ban this tech when Russia and China and India and everyone else uses it to race ahead? It won't MATTER if Europe bans AI if you, as an artist, are already doing what you do today and competing with artists living in Indonesia for commissions. Those artists will be using AI (perfectly legal for them) and out producing you in quality AND quantity.

But I will end this with a question, and that is. Why are you so adamant on defending the theft and laziness that is Ai art on a pirating site? people who steal DAZ models don't try and defend their actions same with Koik. If you wanna be a lazy thief just fucking steal and stop trying to justify the action, with silly shit like "Democratization" "Taking power from elitist artists".

I'm not a thief today, anymore than when I was in art school.

Let me give you an example - I painted a picture of the Mona Lisa in art school in the style of Roy Lichtenstein. Everybody loved it. Everyone wanted a print. A+.

Now, I could have AI do the same thing in minutes. Is the difference the effort I had to personally expend? Is "how much was this a pain in the ass to create" the measuring stick for artistic value?

Let me put my stance on this as plainly as possible:
AI is a behemoth that cannot be stopped. All artists will accomplish by opposing it is being crushed beneath it. I DO NOT WANT THAT. I want artists to get ONBOARD that behemoth, so they can direct where it goes and have a say it how it shapes the future.

The only people that shit on art are people that think they are going to get replaced.

I dont think AI is ready yet to fully replace artists.

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say. AI will not replace artists. Artists using AI will replace artists that don't, at least in a lot of art fields. Concept art, commissions, portraits, etc.

But some people think it is noble to die as a luddite than to adapt. All I can say is 'fine'. Someone else will take their place in the future.

 

[FlemManiac]

For all the shit AI art gets, and deserves, nothing will ever stop you from doing art yourself. Nothing. Maybe you'll get paid less. Maybe it won't reach as far. Possibly, I don't know. But your hands are there. You can do any game you want using AI or not. It's not an existential threat.

totally I earn fuck all when it comes to art my life would be incredibly more easier if I just dropped art and worked for some fast food joint full time.

Nah my issue comes more as a consumer I'm sure you're aware of the current state of the games market, the companies we expect to produce quality just shit out buggy mess after buggy mess filled with an endless amount of micro transactions.

Now of course many are starting to realize that indie is where it's at however there's a problem many indie games suck not usually due to mal intent that's just the nature of indie so it's up to the consumer to sift through the piles of mediocre and worse to find that gem. This is where Ai generators really would become a problem, there are over 10k games released every year just on the PC alone. Ai will not bring about a revolution where suddenly everyone can make amazing games, it will just be the 80s again where people wanting to make a quick buck shit out buggy bootleg after bootleg, if you think it's hard to find a good game nowadays GOODLUCK when suddenly there's over 100k Ai generated games on steam. Now of course I don't think this will happen persay Ai is mostly just overhyped nonsense it can't actually do a majority of the work that goes into games, no what it does do is falsely advertise itself as a good product.

A decent chunk of consumers like quality Ai doesn't bring quality.

 

[JeFawk]

Had some friend that was bullied by someone angry that they used AI art and should do better to hide it. The friend didn't use AI art lol. It's really bad when these backfire. He's pretty much against AI, so maybe it was a troll that tried to trigger him, idk.

 

[FlemManiac]

Yeah. They resisted adapting. They died. Don't see them around or doing so well, today, do you?

Did you, or did you not, just claim that "Billion dollar tech companies and their share holders" are the ones who stand the most to gain from this tech? And you think they are going to let governments ban it?

Or better yet - you think governments CAN ban it? It fits on flashdrives. It can now run off phones. It is open source code in the wild. The "genie is out of the bottle", "Pandora's Box is open", the "horses have left the barn", feel free to insert your favorite phrase here, but they all mean the same thing. It's too late.

And you think the U.S. and Europe are going to ban this tech when Russia and China and India and everyone else uses it to race ahead? It won't MATTER if Europe bans AI if you, as an artist, are already doing what you do today and competing with artists living in Indonesia for commissions. Those artists will be using AI (perfectly legal for them) and out producing you in quality AND quantity.

Aww I even gave you a nice history lesson I guess you didn't read it, maybe you're not as smart as I thought you were ;(

News flash china has already banned Ai generators parts of the EU are already banning or have banned Ai and the FTC has already told 2 Ai companies to destroy their algorithms for I quote "collecting data they shouldn't have" granted the data was that of children and facial recognition, but the key thing legal folk took away from it was that there is data that shouldn't be touched and what data shouldn't be touched can be argued in court, course The US out of any country is the least likely to regulate it since it's insanely corrupt.

But the thing that these Tech companies have done that is most likely to fuck them over is that they stepped on the toes of other billion dollar corporations.


As for India or Russia advancing their own Ai, so? if Ai is to be fully banned including contents made with it from the country where I consume and work so fucking what if india is shitting out millions of Ai generated bollywood movies they wouldn't be able to enter Euro markets.

Hell look at this site as an example Loli is pretty much mainly banned in the UK and Europe, I mean china doesn't care neither does India hell same with the US, yet it doesn't matter whether your Chinese or American, you're not getting that on f95zone.
(course they are exceptions but my point stands regardless)

Like I understand that you're dehydrated from all that koolaid but what is that logic "Criminals will still do the thing even if its illegal" duh the point is if it's illegal GOOD LUCK selling that shit on public markets you don't exactly find cocaine sitting right next to the candy isle.

 

[SenMizeri]

Aww I even gave you a nice history lesson I guess you didn't read it, maybe you're not as smart as I thought you were ;(

News flash china has already banned Ai generators parts of the EU are already banning or have banned Ai and the FTC has already told 2 Ai companies to destroy their algorithms for I quote "collecting data they shouldn't have" granted the data was that of children and facial recognition, but the key thing legal folk took away from it was that there is data that shouldn't be touched and what data shouldn't be touched can be argued in court, course The US out of any country is the least likely to regulate it since it's insanely corrupt.

But the thing that these Tech companies have done that is most likely to fuck them over is that they stepped on the toes of other billion dollar corporations.


As for India or Russia advancing their own Ai, so? if Ai is to be fully banned including contents made with it from the country where I consume and work so fucking what if india is shitting out millions of Ai generated bollywood movies they wouldn't be able to enter Euro markets.

Hell look at this site as an example Loli is pretty much mainly banned in the UK and Europe, I mean china doesn't care neither does India hell same with the US, yet it doesn't matter whether your Chinese or American, you're not getting that on f95zone.
(course they are exceptions but my point stands regardless)

Like I understand that you're dehydrated from all that koolaid but what is that logic "Criminals will still do the thing even if its illegal" duh the point is if it's illegal GOOD LUCK selling that shit on public markets you don't exactly find cocaine sitting right next to the candy isle.

Porn is illegal in China. Full stop.

The E.U. don't have any big tech companies anymore, and their biggest companies are falling behind everyone else - you can't regulate yourself into prosperity. Every decade, their markets become less significant.

Indians haven't been spoon fed fictional stories about artificial intelligence taking over the world, so they have a different, and more optimistic view of "AI" art.

 

[FlemManiac]

The E.U. don't have any big tech companies anymore, and their biggest companies are falling behind everyone else - you can't regulate yourself into prosperity. Every decade, their markets become less significant.

Sure but you'll be hard pressed to find a single American Tech company willing to completely lose out on an entire market.

Why do you think so many US companies completely bend over backwards for china?

And what value do these Ai companies actually bring? none, they just monopolize pre existing value.

 

[SenMizeri]

Sure but you'll be hard pressed to find a single American Tech company willing to completely lose out on an entire market.

Why do you think so many US companies completely bend over backwards for china?

And what value do these Ai companies actually bring? none, they just monopolize pre existing value.

Tbh, this is going off topic now, I cba talking politics on a porn/pirating website, can you?

AI is here, it's a new tech that aids and helps, and you'll have to come to terms with it.

I absolutely despise social media, I think it's done so much harm to our society, but I have to accept it's here, and it won't budge. The internet used to be filled with forums/communities like f95 (not necessarily porn), until the likes of Facebook, Twitter and others plagued search engine results.

It's the same with AI, no matter how much you want it to go away. You have to adapt or 'die'. It's reality, even if we don't like it.

 

[FlemManiac]

Tbh, this is going off topic now, I cba talking politics on a porn/pirating website, can you?

AI is here, it's a new tech that aids and helps, and you'll have to come to terms with it.

I absolutely despise social media, I think it's done so much harm to our society, but I have to accept it's here, and it won't budge. The internet used to be filled with forums/communities like f95 (not necessarily porn), until the likes of Facebook, Twitter and others plagued search engine results.

It's the same with AI, no matter how much you want it to go away. You have to adapt or 'die'. It's reality, even if we don't like it.

Completely find this doomer mindset idiotic idk about you but my ancestors lived and died as slaves but through a lot of blood that changed.

But I agree this politics shit is stupid.

But I will say that for Ai "artists" that if you truly want to be considered artists. Good luck, the reason why digital art was originally hated by traditional artists was because they thought it did exactly what Ai art does now.

So you'll be called lazy and dispassionate even after a "luddite" like myself has been long dead and rotten (50% chance the state being the killer)

 

[CozyKeeper]

I'm capable of making digital art without AI, but it speeds the process up so much. You can make a quick sketch, run it through AI and then do a little bit of touching up and you have a finished piece.

It's kinda funny that the people that are capable of getting the most use out of AI Art generators are artists...

 

[Biscardone]

That, my friend, is called "gate keeping". It is something the artistic community has done for a long time.

If requiring any kind of basic skill before starting a creative endeavor is considered gatekeeping, I'm personally perfectly fine with it. Simply saying that anyone can be an artist is naive at best and straight disingenuous at worst. Everyone can make art, not everyone can be an artist. Results (and a bit of hindsight) count. And I know that today's art is mostly driven by circles and cliques, but thinking that the problem can be solved by an AI is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
By the way, I've already seen attempts to make specific sectors of knowledge more accessible to masses to incentivize adoption (in the name of an ideal of democratization): however motivation, curiosity, ingenuity and vision are absolute prerequisites when approaching any form of knowledge. Trying to remove all barriers only generates a bunch of white noise that makes it hard to separate wheat from chaff, and ultimately trying to convince and giving the illusion that "anyone can make it" is just a feeding ground for the Dunning-Krueger effect. Limitations are not just annoyances, since they breed creativity. Removing any kind of challenge from any task pushes people to refrain from thinking at all - someone called it "idiocracy", and it's quite on point to me.
I don't usually like examples, because they are usually loaded with bias, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt... But, here's an example anyway: Basic was an attempt to make programming accessible to common people, without knowledge of low-level assembler and machine architecture. It worked, and that's good. But if you try to push the approach to the limit and convince people that anyone can program (because all in all programming is easy, right?), you get Visual Basic, which nowadays is absolutely reviled by anyone who knows what he's doing.
By the way, if you have an idea but don't have the skill to realize it, today it's extremely easy to find an artist, or a programmer, to collaborate with. As someone said, we're in the Punk era of videogames: now go and form a band.

But I'll say that if AI produces "masterpieces" that can't be distinguished from human generated "masterpieces", it's fair. Artists will just have to adapt, like they did with the invention of the camera. Some artists freaked out, others recognized it as a tool to increase their productivity and improve their work flow. There even developed a new class of artists - photographers, who understood and excelled at pushing the new medium.

The issue is: aside from the initial knee-jerk reaction, photography did not replace pictures, and as you said, became a form of art itself. Why? Because aside the physical means, it requires knowledge, instinct, vision, ingenuity. In other words, it requires thought all the way through. The photographer is still front and center. The aim of current big push to the AI adoption is to replace the artist - sure, this is not what's written on the packaging, but that's the intention. Yes, "economics", as you said. This is something provable, by the way: one week ago in my company we had a meeting where the top managers illustrated the next innovations to solve some of the issues related to the company software. Guess what: they intend to run a trial and ask ChatGPT to rewrite some software modules according to specifications. Is it feasible? That's not the point. "Idea people" are starting to think that they can replace people's work with pseudo-chatterbots and obtain better results.
Oh, and before you say "well, programmers will have to adapt and collaborate with the AI instead of writing code themselves", consider there is a tiny problem of scale: as soon as it starts working any better, ChatGPT can replace tens of thousands of people altogether. That's a net negative in my book, and it's not comparable to other similar events in history - because technology advancement is blazingly fast, and it won't guarantee all the replaced people will be able to adapt in a short timeframe.

They'll BECOME artists. Because AI art still takes intentionality. Everyone with real curiosity on this and not an instant knee-jerk reaction, should look at the Stable Diffusion sub-reddit. Look for posts with workflow included, or look up Youtube videos of people showing their AI workflow. Because you'll find, for ARTISTS (whether they had that title before AI came along or not), it is indeed a WORKflow.

There are tools now for them to create poses, define facial expressions, which way the head is turned. Composition - what the AI generates and where it generates it (segmentation) - put a chair here, a picture here, a lamp here, a patch of grass here, etc. They have to determine style by the model they select, the LORAs they add on, the prompt words they use and in what order. They don't just accept what the AI gives them. They "inpaint" it. They point at little areas and say "AI, redo this area, but with these instructions". They may do that MANY times. Then many will take that picture into an image editor and hand edit it - take out this and that, move that, fix this and that. Then they'll upscale it, fix it some more, and then post it.

That's a common pattern with the modern neural network approach: reduce a problem to an input (an initial image to upload, a description of the result you want), a bunch of sliders, tweaks and iterations ("shall I use a sigmoid or a relu as an activation function? why don't I add a couple of hidden layers or nodes more?), vet the results, rinse and repeat until you reach your goal. "Sterile" is the first word that comes to mind, and comparing an operator with a full-fledged artist is reductive to me. It's like tossing 10000 dice ad nauseam until you get a certain number of sixes. When you do, whose merit was that, yours or the dice's?

And you know what? Even if all some of them are doing is making pictures of beautiful naked women . . . so what? There have been thousands of traditional artists who do nothing but paint or draw pictures of beautiful naked women over and over again, and no one accuses them of not being artists due to their "lack of creativity". But there are AI artists who are doing much more creative things - a series of selfies with historical figures, each image taking them a whole day to produce.

And traditional artists' arguments against AI will continue to fall away. Plagiarism? New AI models are being trained entirely on opensource art and pictures, or from images the company owns all the rights to. See Adobe's Firefly, which will be in Photoshop and used by Google's Bard AI for image generation. No copyright infringement there.

Well, the problem is not the lack of creativity. The problem is, ask a couple artists to draw a naked woman; it's very unlikely you'll get the same result. Each drawing will reflect the skill, style and intent of the artist. Ask stable diffusion to do the same: when you get two different images, these factors are completely absent. And again, it's not just a matter of having an expert or creative operator to drive the process. The data used by the algorithms, and the algorithms themselves, have intrinsic biases - with neural networks, almost no one can know what they are. Being open source solves a problem, not all of them. Also, naked women are the least of our problems.

To tie all this back around - artists are people who care about the images they create, and are creating them with a message. That includes AI artists.

Does a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible AI art deserve some derision? Sure. But no more than a dev that posts an adult game here that uses terrible default DAZ models with terrible lighting and renders made by screenshotting the application.

A good image is going to be a good image - whether it was made with a camera, a pencil, a brush, or an AI. We haven't even wrapped around to a full year since the introduction of this tech to the public. And the difference in the quality of the AI images in just 8 months is ASTOUNDING.

So for anyone being derisive of the tech, I want you to think about what that means for where it will be in 5 years or a decade. I will tell you want will happen - there will be a new generation of artists that grow up with this tech, who are using it now as kids, who will use it make images expressing their angsts and desires when they are teens, and who will be producing outstanding art with it when they become young adults, all without the hang-ups towards the tech the previous generation had. It's what happened with digital art.

And in 5 years (or less) I predict this forum won't give a shit about AI art being in games. The forum will only care if the art is good. "Oh, shit. Finally a game with good HoneySelect/DAZ/AI art!"

Putting a camera, pencil, brush and and AI on the same level is a false equivalence. AI is not just a neutral tool, because its current use aims to replace both the tools and the artist. I'm quite sure that, in time, the results of some generative AI will be practically indistinguishable from that of an good level artist - and that's our event horizon. Yes, the technology is astounding, and it's also most likely inevitable: and that's a problem. I cannot see any way in which removing control from the human, or removing the "human factor" altogether, is anything positive. Especially if you think that the job of the operator in time could also be replaced by another AI, maybe more randomly biased - and that's the ticket, right?
Finally, I know too well people won't care about the author of a naked woman picture, be it a person or an AI. It's called being lazy, and uninterested in your fellow human. Again, is it supposed to be a positive? I can see it happening, just don't ask me to be enthusiastic about it.

(And finally, I find it humorous that so many on a supposed piracy website give a shit about AI art possibly infringing on copyright by copying the "style" of an artist.)

Personally speaking, as it should be abundantly clear by now, that's not what I'm concerned about - F95 to me is a way to discover new games and the ones I'm interested in are mostly funded by Patreon, so the piracy aspect is irrelevant to me. However, me and others (artists or not) feel that we are playing with tools we know very little about without thinking about the consequences - and they will hit us hard, not because of the AI themselves, but because we're mostly irresponsible asshats.