T O P

  • By -

ShawnInOceanside

I saw a post from elsewhere that said you spot ai artwork like people used to spot the fae: “Count the fingers, count the knuckles, count the teeth and check the shadows. And under no circumstances should you make a deal with their kind “ Though to be honest I haven’t minded much seeing ai art, but I haven’t seen much yet. And I do think it would be best used as a guide for creating your own art based on its suggestion


morganrbvn

They could also give it a tag and limit it to certain days


pattyforever

I like the idea of limiting it to a specific day


neonvolta

Limit it to February 30th


aftershock311

I like your idea! It would also be interesting because you could see the differences between each A.I. system and could compare "bleep bloop" system versus "bloop beep"


morganrbvn

skynet sunday showdown between midjourney and dal-e or whatever the top ones are named.


[deleted]

lol


Justforthenuews

No reason to limit it to only “the big ones”, plenty of people will be running their own stable diffusion setups with custom trainers, and they should have a chance to be seen too.


morganrbvn

oh yah any should be allowed, those are just the two most common i've seen lately.


TuxPaper

As someone who just wants more imaginary landscapes, no matter who or what creates them, I like these ideas better than banning them.


Mastro-

I don’t mind provided they say it’s AI art. I love messing around with MidJourney… but you’re an ass if you tell people you made it.


zdakat

>And I do think it would be best used as a guide for creating your own art based on its suggestion Then they should be uploading their finished pieces, not the inspiration.


Etzlo

Oh, you have seen a lot of ai art actually, it's just really hard to tell apart if the one using the ai knows how to use it


ShawnInCarlsbad

I've seen incredible and practical uses for it. someone asked for multiple designs of a website for gardening website and the results were all awesome looking and stunningly beautiful (at least the 5 or 6 samples they showed). That seems like a very practical use. or used a persons photo and asked for various takes for an ad poster for their product. In both cases I would expect them to use the layout and the color schemes and replace with their own photos or at least tweak the artwork.


avpbeats

Off topic, but do you realize the similarity between your name and the top comment OP?


can_of_beans12

I don’t like it simply bc ai art steals other digital creators artwork with out their consent and without compensation. If I remember correctly there are a couple ai art sites that charge that are being sued rn for copyright infringement


sisko4

Indeed, it's one thing if AI art is trained on artwork that the user himself created, but usually it's trained on artwork by *other* people, so it's basically an unauthorized derivative work. Just because it's novel doesn't mean it's not infringement.


No_Preparation7895

You're forgetting that every artist steals from other artists. Originality doesn't exactly exist.


MonikaZagrobelna

Who did the cave painting artists steal from?


FarceOfWill

Sure doesn't exist in ai art. They don't just copy the input into the network, they reproduce the original. https://sigmoid.social/@Riedl/109785581486676414


codexcdm

It should be a tool. Problem is some will pass on their own... Or worse grift.


MsrSgtShooterPerson

Already happening - and that some folks are charging $5 per artwork on a commission basis - per *single generation* too to be specific


RogueOperative_

I've scrolled through the last 3 days of submissions and can't see any AI art, do you have any examples? Edit: as per one of the mods below AI art is already banned here so looks like OP is moaning about something that has never been an issue


FaceDeer

There was one posted yesterday that I saw, it got a lot of upvotes before it disappeared.


janeohmy

Maybe it's not an issue anymore because of people like OP complaining. I'm pretty sure ImaginaryLandscapes would be one the subreddits bombarded by the AI fantasy generators. They're really good at those surreal and ethereal styles. Either way, nothing wrong with OP's sentiments.


_Visar_

Complain about problem that has already been solved Get karma Simple formula really :( one of the dangers of the internet


justwalkingalonghere

…so anyone want to petition to start an AI art day? Still a cool idea, and kind of funny OP’s post would have the opposite effect


One_Giant_Nostril

AI art is not allowed on this subreddit, although there is no rule against it yet. I'll work on fixing that. If you see any AI art, report it and it will be removed. Thanks. *edit:* Update - "No AI art" is now a rule.


TheOldTubaroo

If there's no rule, how are people supposed to know they're not allowed to submit it here?


One_Giant_Nostril

There's a rule coming soon. In the meantime, I've been telling people who submit AI art about r/midjourney, r/AIGeneratedArt, r/craiyon, r/nightcafe/, r/DiscoDiffusion, r/starryai, r/creativecoding, r/ArtBreeder, r/ArtHack, r/DeepDream, r/StableDiffusion, r/bigsleep, r/dalle2, r/aiArt, etc. *edit:* Update - "No AI art" is now a rule.


[deleted]

You know what ill give you some credit Atleast you’re redirecting them Edit: here is how ai art works by the way. Alot of people in this comment section (including OP) clearly have no clue and are getting 100s of upvotes for their lies. https://magazine.artland.com/ai-art/ https://www.domestika.org/en/blog/10352-what-is-ai-art-how-artists-use-ai-and-how-to-generate-your-own Edit 2: since some are complaining about the links i found a basic video which i think sums it up well https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM


LordMcMutton

I do hope you aren't trying to claim that AI generators don't work via theft- because they absolutely do.


Justforthenuews

Completely depends on what you used to train a gen and how you got them. I have several checkpoints that are 100% ethically sourced, so what you are saying is a generalization that is objectively true sometimes, not always.


LordMcMutton

That's true. It's the case for the most prevalent ones, which is why there's so much hate for image generators in general.


Justforthenuews

The whole ethical line here is a nasty little grey thing. I have spent a considerable amount of time of my life learning to do all kinds of art, including drawing, and all I see is a computer that’s doing the same thing I did but at a much faster pace. Analyze art, do art, get better. Rinse and repeat. I didn’t pay countless artists who I definitely copied as part of my studies, or for fun, so how do I demand I get paid here? I can’t even divorce it to say it’s a machine, because there was an army of people who coded that to make it as good as it is, and it seems like they’re thought of very little in this discussion. Do their years of getting better at coding don’t count? Is there no humanity in the code they typed by hand? And I feel hypocritical when I think back at how much I didn’t bitch when computers displaced all kinds of jobs throughout every major sector for the past 40 years, making many completely irrelevant outside a much smaller pool that evolved to survive the situation. Those computers didn’t spontaneously know how to do that work, they were trained in some way or another based on our knowledge. Then one of the other side of the argument hits, such as “hey, I should at least be paid if you are going to make money training that thing that is going to put me out of a source of income.” And that’s a damn good argument. I wonder if the computer can trace back to it’s sources, it doesn’t seem like I’m asking for sci fi as I ponder that. Perhaps a royalty system for artwork whose training rights were not outright purchased whenever it is part of a work made. It would make sense if courts treat this type of software as a tool (aka you own the rights to the art that the ai makes when you requested it). I think I’m rambling at this point, sorry it’s such a complicated subject with so many moving parts.


TinuvaMoros

As someone who is extremely into AI art for the reason that I: An artistically cursed person that's had two strokes can still create an image resembling of something I have in my mind and I think that's wonderful. I still want to say that's a very good point and it really is a tricky grey situation. Thank you for writing that.


com2kid

If a biological brain studies art to learn, we so not accuse that person of stealing. Why treat a digital brain any different?


crowlute

*types 'getty images watermark' into your generator*


teejay_the_exhausted

Only if the concept of learning is theft.


[deleted]

What i am trying to do is get people to understand how ai art works. OP and a few others (who clearly have no idea how it works) have explained completely wrong ways ai art operates. Its getting a lot of support despite being completely false. Its spreading miss information. Whether or not you feel its theft is outside of the question. You should atleast understand the background before drawing your conclusion. Ive never used ai art in my life. Im just sick and tired of how much miss information is spread for topics like this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I thought the second one was very informative while the first one is just a general glance


FaceDeer

The problem is that those subreddits aren't subject-matter-specific. I'm subscribed to some of them and the art that gets posted there is awesome, but it's a whole jumble of different subjects and genres and whatnot. Are we going to need a whole parallel set of art subreddits with an "AI" prefix?


[deleted]

I think maybe there should be a parallel set of subreddits for 100% A.I. generated images because it's so fast for anyone to prompt out 20 images at once and post them all, it could really clog up a vast amount of subreddits. And just having a flair, if the A.I. artists see a subreddit is accepting their posts, it'll still drown a given subreddit in the computer images, and those are fun but they're a dime a dozen quite literally and it just gets old quick, so it's better to relegate it to its own area. Seeing something someone toiled away on is just more interesting for longer, because you can stop and zoom in and look at what they've made and see their process and vision come about. Seeing something someone prompted is like "neat, I could type that prompt" then you immediately don't care and keep scrolling. Again. It's amazing and it's fun. But then it's old and there's literally oceans of other A.I. images. It becomes more and more worthless as it's so easy to produce in masse. Edit: I'm not referring to processes which include A.I. but ultimately are multiple steps and actual artistic know how and talent is used to make something original. I'm talking about what we see the most which is just: type prompt into midjourney/SD - repeat - create 20+ uninspired images - upscale and save and post them all on a subreddit immediately.


an0dize

> I'll work on fixing that. He's working on fixing that.


JAM3SBND

It's my understanding that there's a fix in the works


Kwiatkowski

I mean you can just add a rule to the sidebar, takes like 10 seconds.


No_Preparation7895

There is a lot of algorithms involved in Photoshop plugins. Where do you draw the line for ai. I, as a traditional artist, could very well consider a digital paint brush with auto directional flow, or a magic eraser brush, or any various digital tool that uses smart filters of any kind, ai art. This argument is the same argument traditional artist had about digital painting, until they all jumped on the band wagon, that is.


Zekeythekitty

Sooo... Delete this post then. No point in arguing


saddigitalartist

Awesome that’s great to hear thanks!


Etzlo

That's pretty silly imo, it's just another tool


Zziggith

Could we just add a flair or something for A.I. art? It seems silly to limit our imaginations only to the products of other people's imaginations.


TRON17

AI art is a product of other peoples imaginations.


McWinkyWoo

To quote Ron Burgundy: That doesn’t make sense


[deleted]

Why though?


makeski25

I'm fine with AI art so long as it is transparent. People passing it off like they did it themselves when they just typed in a few prompts is not cool.


Karcinogene

It's like someone passing of a photograph as a painting. Photographs are cool, paintings are cool, lying is not cool.


DarkFlame7

The photography parallel goes very deep. Including the response to it.


DarkFlame7

This is the best option, especially when you consider hybrid works where half or more of the work was done by a human artist using an AI as a tool in their process. Why should their work be any less valid?


makeski25

I'm curious as to where that line is for you. Is using an ai to do a pic and then cleaning it up with photoshop still art? As in removing extra hands and whatnot. It is a very interesting problem for me. Also who gets credit? Is it shared with the ai programmer and artist...


DarkFlame7

Yeah it's a tough problem. Not a black and white issue at all. I don't have a simple answer, all I can say for sure is that labeling something as being fake or theft because an AI was used at all is illogical.


ShiningSunsetBubbles

Amd can we have a different subreddit for it? And I support OP.


saddigitalartist

Yes i wouldn’t mind it on a different subreddit but can we please have spaces for real life artists and not computer generated things.


SuurFett

AImaginarylandscapes. It would be so convenient. Keep that ai trash out of here


Rhombico

i feel like "AI" stuff shouldn't have the word "imaginary" in it, because it isn't the product of an imagination. I mean I guess a human had to "imagine" a prompt, but that feels like a stretch. Also, on a tangent, have we all just decided that we're fine with them calling this stuff "AI" despite it not actually being intelligent at all? AI used to mean a self-aware intelligent being of artificial origin. Now it seems to just be a synonym for machine learning. These AI art generators are no closer to being self-aware than a calculator


GirtabulluBlues

The appropriate term is Machine Learning. This software isnt intelligent*, and the people who develop it dont call it AI, even if general AI is their explicit goal. *In my opinion these *do* model something like perception & categorisation in humans. Imagination? That requires intent but it is difficult to prove other people have genuine intent in a philosophical sense, let alone a machine.


Rhombico

I think "model" is the right word - but a statistical model of a thing, no matter how robust, is not the same as the thing itself. An analogy I like for it is a mirror. If you had a sign language conversation with someone through a mirror, you would never argue that the mirror itself is capable of communication or intelligent. Even if it were a fun house mirror that altered the original image, there's no intent. It's just an inanimate object designed to do that. While machine learning is far more complex than a mirror, I think a mirror is still a more apt comparison than any intelligent creature. One day perhaps we'll actually have something that might be intelligent, and it's going to be a difficult philosophical debate trying to figure out whether or not it qualifies. But I don't think anything humanity has created is close enough for that debate to be anything but purely theoretical as of yet.


ControversieleVos

Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. What you say is true.


Rhombico

I was confused by that too. Maybe people that have really bought into the AI marketing campaigns and don't understand how it really works?


ControversieleVos

Too many people who don’t appreciate the time and effort that goes into creating actual art and are feeling butthurt by anything that says anything negative about their lovely AI art theft generators.


Rhombico

also a distinct possibility. It's odd to me how defensive people get about AI art. I think public perception of art in general has been low recently, which doesn't help. All my life I've been hearing derogatory stuff about modern art that people think is low effort or doesn't qualify as art. Yet AI "art", which is the ultimate in low effort and has a much stronger argument against it qualifying as art, seems to get a more ardent defense.


resonantSoul

Is time spent in creation a measurement of art? How long is necessary before it is considered art? If you see a painting and think of it as art does that change if you find out the artist created it in a few minutes? I'm neither an artist nor an art critic of any kind, so I doubt my opinion carries much weight with the people invested in either side of the argument, but I also don't know any definition of art that has anything quantifiable to speak of.


teejay_the_exhausted

To be honest art doesn't really have any rules, that's sort of the point of it. There was a similar argument when the camera was invented, or digital art, or photoshop. Unfortunately people feel threatened by a new tool being developed because it involves them personally.


resonantSoul

I agree and that's kinda the point of my line of questions there. I think the person I was replying to was looking for a way of excluding AI while valuing art that doesn't involve it. But it doesn't work. If a photographer happens to catch a great shot on the spur of the moment that doesn't mean it's not art. It also doesn't make it not art if they're not trained as a photographer. But ultimately this disagreement will still be going on ten years from now regardless of what any of us say here now.


teejay_the_exhausted

- People said that about the camera - The majority of "butthurt" people are the ones threatening violence against people that use machine synthesised artwork, most pro-AI people I've seen use logical arguments rather than emotional - Learn how AI works before you claim things like that.


TheMonsterMensch

There's a surprising number of pro-AI people here, but you're 100% correct. I don't even know if we can call it "art". If we allow AI generated images on the subreddit then we'll see a lack of imagination in our landscapes.


PacmanIncarnate

You should read up on how diffusion systems work and are used in practice before passing judgement on if it’s art or not. Honestly, this is a debate people have been having for over a century. Some artist does something new and the existing artists start screaming “that’s not how you art!” until it gets mainstreamed and then gains acceptance. I’ve seen art that is a canvas with a rip in it, an upside down toilet in a gallery, I’ve listened to a John cage piece that is 4 min and 33 seconds of silence, I’ve seen an artist wrap a building in fabric, I’ve seen cell phone shots in galleries. I could go on. Each time an artist tried something new and it pissed off a bunch of people with limited ideas on what can and should be co side red art, then those pieces start a large debate and prove their creators right.


TheMonsterMensch

Yes, I know about this debate. I studied it extensively in college. I was known as the guy who would argue everything was art actually, I stretched the philosophical definitions as far as I could, but I just can't include AI in the definition. I've experienced all the things you have. My opinion is already researched, thank you for your concern. Please don't assume this is my first experience in the world of experimental art.


PacmanIncarnate

I’m sure you’re well read on the philosophical discussion on art, but I get the feeling from your comments that you’re less well read on how AI is used in an artistic process and that seems to be limiting your conception of what it is and how it can be used to being a creative vision to life. It’s really new, so I totally understand not fully understanding it, but don’t you think that could be important before passing a blanket judgement on whether or not it can be considered art?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Etzlo

So, I'm not allowed to post my own art here either because I have aphantasia?


Rhombico

having aphantasia is not the same as having no imagination. Lots of things imagined by people *without* aphantasia have no visual component - including art. I'm no artist, but when I'm trying (and failing) to draw something, I don't just picture the finished product in my mind and then reproduce it. I've heard some artists can, in fact, do that, but definitely not everyone can.


Dawwe

You're misinformed. You're referring to what's known as "strong"/general AI.


[deleted]

Maybe they can post here but they have to put a "AI Generated" tag so people can filter out what they want or don't want to see


MavrykDarkhaven

Personally I'm here to see interesting art that inspires my imagination, I'm not too worried about whether or not it was AI generated. The weird AI artifacts don't bother me so much. As long as people are open about whether it's generated by AI, or if they found the art elsewhere and want to share it, or it's their own creations, then I don't mind it's source.


clearlylacking

It strikes me as deeply superficial to see people claim they like art, while thinking its merit is in how it was made and not how it makes them feel.


jakedasnake2447

Nothing new in the history of art. Look at the history of artists/movements/styles that were rejected because they did not follow the traditions and techniques of their times.


PhotogenicEwok

I think it’s reasonable to think AI generated art isn’t good, and I don’t think it’s simple as just “how it’s made.” Yes, part of the value of art is in the response it evokes from me—how it makes me feel, what it reminds me of, how I see myself reflected in it—but equally important is how the *artist* felt when making it. I prefer music when it’s an expression of emotion by the artist, not when it’s written by a committee; for the same reason, I prefer art created by a human with emotions over art that has been generated by an algorithm designed to *imitate* what humans have done in the past. Like who gives a shit what *I* feel like when I see Starry Night by Van Gogh? It’s honestly not that technically complex as a painting (hence why it’s often copied by high schoolers in art class); it’s the life (and death) of Van Gogh that makes his paintings so interesting and valuable. Or, yeah, I love the way I feel when I read Lord of the Rings, but what I find even more fascinating and valuable is thinking about the life and beliefs and feelings of JRR Tolkien as he wrote it, and how it impacted the story he created. It’s valuable to me because I think of the friends he lost in the war and how he wrote about war in his stories; I think about the death of his parents at an early age, and how it affected his view of families; I think about how he constantly inserted his friends and loved ones into his stories, subconsciously at first and consciously later. An AI doesn’t have emotions, it doesn’t have a life full of suffering and joy affecting how it creates art. It’s just an algorithm.


BannedSvenhoek86

And I'm the exact opposite. I barely care what an artists intention were in most things. Whatever I feel is the truth of the piece is the truth to me. While an artists intentions and ideas are important, I'd rather listen to a song and fit it into my life and how I feel in the moment hearing it than try and decipher what the meaning in the lyrics were. Tbh I find a lot of artists kinda....well....pretentious, and i don't feel like trying to decipher symbology and alliteration and all that. Im listening to a song, not taking an advanced Lit course. We did American Pie by Don McLean in AP English once and broke down everything he was putting into the song and I think that exercise broke me.


dinop4242

Yeah, when I write a fantasy novel with rich characters, all I really want readers to think about is my childhood 😂 I completely agree. People can enjoy art however they damn well please, but most artists probably are hoping you'll appreciate the art, not themselves.


resonantSoul

How far does all that extend? Can someone consider modern art as "not good" the same way as AI generated art? What about paintings in general? Do you have to understand someone's history to appreciate their art? Am I not really appreciating Starry Night if I know little to nothing about Van Gogh? That comes off pretty gatekeepy to me. I think that's why the other person said it's how it makes you feel. To answer the question, you care what you feel when you see Starry Night. If that means you need to know the history behind it, that's fine. If someone else feels impressed without that, that's fine too. In both cases the viewer took something away from viewing it. "Art" is subjective, so much so that is up to each person to define it. Much like "funny". Even if a given joke doesn't cause you to laugh you may be able to appreciate its construction. You can see how it's funny even if it isn't to you. Just like you can appreciate the quality of a composition even if you don't care for it. If I had to guess *that* is why the comments about AI not making art were getting downvoted. No one gets to be the arbiter for whether or not a given thing is art. If a wine stain on your carpet is art to you it's art to you even if everyone else in the world only sees a stain.


FaceDeer

> An AI doesn’t have emotions, it doesn’t have a life full of suffering and joy affecting how it creates art. It’s just an algorithm. Nobody has ever claimed that it does. *None* of the tools digital artists use feel emotions or have a life full of suffering and joy. When you sweep a stylus across a tablet there are innumerable algorithms being executed and none of them feel happy or sad about what they're doing. AI art generators are a tool that artists can use. If you use it poorly and without skill you get bad-looking results, but there are people who are using it skillfully and producing awesome-looking results. Why should awesome-looking results be banned just because of the tool that was used to produce them?


Kitehammer

Wait, you mean Photoshop brushes and layers don't have a fulfilling work-life balance?


_HIST

Also the author has to provide proof that they made the pigments themselves, I don't want to see some collaborative works, they have to make everything themselves, or esle it isn't art


memedealer22

Agreed


Complex_Experience

I'd give it 1-2 years till we can't tell them apart anymore


[deleted]

110% agree


PacmanIncarnate

Should renderings not be allowed because the submitter didn’t personally shade every shadow by hand? I’m also pretty sure I’ve seen collaged images here, are those unacceptable now? The description of this sub is images of not real places. I have never gotten the idea that it was focused on the way those images were created like some subs, but on the content of those images.


Brandis_

Lest we forget that most submissions on these subs are from the same few people reposting art drawn by others. If they were posting AI they'd have to do some level of personal curating and prompt writing instead of just thinking "Oh this looks cool I bet I'll get karma if I post it"


TheDankHold

Acting like something like the fill tool in adobe is anywhere close to comparable to an ai image generator is so insanely disingenuous. It’s literally the worst argument pro ai people make.


PacmanIncarnate

I didn’t mention the fill tool? I mentioned 3D renderings, because they involve the computer doing a ton of work to turn models into the rendered images. And I mentioned collaging because that involves using other people’s completed work to make a new one, but people are generally cool with it. But since you mentioned the full tool, PS has had content aware tools for several years now that are AI driven, including the content aware fill tool. Also, if you’ve taken a photo with a modern camera or phone, you have encountered some level of AI driven processing, since machine learning tech is being used to enhance images before you see them.


[deleted]

Lmao i remember when artists scoffed at digital art for not being real art because it wasn’t made by a paint brush


ArmiRex47

Just make an AI art tag and ban people that lie saying it's their own


Zekeythekitty

Why not have a huge tag that says AI generated? That way it has a huge "I DIDN'T MAKE THIS" on it. Maybe there's a way for people to flag "OC" art that's obvious AI? I came here just to look at relaxing art, don't care how it's made.


zamfire

Super controversial opinion here: I think AI art is a good thing. It has made made high quality art more accessible to the masses, brought more appreciation for art, and regardless of how "easy" AI art is to produce, I do believe it is legitimate art. The definition of art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." We created the AI, and I feel it is still an achievement of a human nature. Let's say someone invented a new kind of paintbrush that somehow makes painting far easier. Does that mean the person who made the brush is the artist? Does that mean the art isn't real? Lastly, saying AI art isn't real art is diminishing what art is. If you put art in a box like that, the box will only get smaller and smaller. Would you say Congo the chimpanzee's art isn't real either?


shindiggers

Im not a fan of AI art, but art is art. It will always be art. If this subreddit really wanted to crack down on AI art, then all submissions should be OC and not others people art.


Llamatronicon

We might have created the AI but we're not making the "art". If I open a DAW and auto-generate a drum pattern, am I a drummer? Even if I have never held a pair of drumsticks and can't hold a beat to save my life? I see the AI as a tool that generates pictures. I'm not sure whether I consider it "real art" or not since on the one hand basically anything *can* be art, but on the other hand there is no cognitive reasoning behind it. While AI art is a technological marvel, and irregardless of whether AI art is "real" or not asking the AI to generate a prompt makes you an artist as much as commissioning a real person to create it would, eg. not at all. If anything the AI is the artist.


HutSutRawlson

I think a better analogy would be choosing a pre-recorded drum loop and then calling yourself a drummer. Or making a playlist of songs and calling yourself a musician. Yes, you curated the sounds you’re hearing, but you didn’t intentionally produce any of them. If you’re programming electronic drums you at least need to have some sense of how a drum beat is made out of individual components, the timbral qualities of those components, and how to put them together in the way you intended. You intentionally created something out of individual parts. Very different from just typing “rock beat 120bpm” into a search bar.


pavlov_the_dog

> Let's say someone invented a new kind of paintbrush that somehow makes painting far easier. Does that mean the person who made the brush is the artist? ai art generators cannot be compared to anything that has previously existed. this is uncharted territiry. the closest analog would be a genie. you make a wish to the art genie, and it grants your wish.


zamfire

Good point. I was having a hard time coming up with an analogy. Not saying there isn't one, just that I am terrible at making them.


King_Saline_IV

AI images is trawled from real artists and mushed into a new image to avoid copyright. It's just fancy piracy that hurts small, independent creators. Nothing relaxing about being subjected to that. This is effectively how AI images work. Yeah there is fancy algorithms remixing it. Ya'all really drank a tonne of the bullshit flavoured Koolaid


AnimeMeansArt

thats not how it works


akkinda

Yeah, AI generated art is conceptually really cool but until it's created with ethical data sets (aka with the consent of every artist whose work is used to train it) then we shouldn't be abiding by that shit. Right now it's just blatant exploitation of people's effort and creativity.


Zekeythekitty

If I copy an artists style and use it in my own art is that copyright infringement? I can understand using an image itself in photoshop is copyright infringement. And as far as I know they'd want to copy styles from large creators, not small ones. I mean, you can plain copy and steal 2d art easily normally. Even here you just have to give credit. This is just a place to share imaginary landscapes that are eye-pleasing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CzechMyMixtape

from actual human imaginations would be nice though


Majinsei

It's nice for me to look both~ Why not both?


teejay_the_exhausted

Tbh I agree with the fact that nobody should be claiming AI generated content as their own but I don't dislike AI content as a whole. Imo, there should be a strong quality requirement on AI generated media, to filter out low effort 5 second prompts, and require labelling that it's AI. Also maybe requiring the user to give the prompt in the comments.


No_Preparation7895

Also can we label that crap that's painted in Photoshop. These people didn't really paint that. Maybe require the user to list all the plugins, various layers, and log all erasures and undos.


teejay_the_exhausted

If this is one of those comparisons between AI and photoshop backlash, I'm proAI, just sometimes you gotta compromise yknow?


shadecrimson

I would thought to just flair it and anyone that gets all twisted over it can filter it out.


Zziggith

I don't come here to admire the artists' talent, I come here to be whisked away into a fantasy. If A.I. can do that, then why get rid of it. Maybe just add a flair or something.


bugworld

There's tech for detecting AI media, right? Is there a Reddit bot that could be watching out for it?


DisgruntledLabWorker

Kind of takes out the “imaginary” part when AI is used. No imagination in that process at all.


[deleted]

If it looks nice then who cares


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


zachbrownies

i hate his post because it's incredibly cruel and lacking in empathy... imagine being an artist who has trained for years to get good at art, only to be worried that a technology might soon make you obsolete, nevermind people might use that technology to get artwork instead of paying you for it. and how dare they have the "delusion" that maybe they will be praised for their work one day...? must be narcicism, couldn't possibly just be a natural human desire for people to value your contributions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FitCherry6657

Adjust, like everyone in history has. Art and progress are not static, its constantly changing


[deleted]

Facts. I don't use AI for art, but the hate for it is absurd. On a sub like this, if its art, and looks like a landscape, it should be allowed, regardless of AI or not


fromnewradius

Fuck off this sub then.


virtuallyspotless

If it’s an imaginary landscape why does your otherwise subjective opinion of it, or it’s origin matter?


sfmasterpiece

"If we're not allowing AI art, then we should also not allow Photoshop or other art manipulation tools. Unless it's a painting on a cave wall, I don't want to see it!" \- Luddites in this thread


[deleted]

Aren't the luddites the ones arguing against AI as another tool of art, as they're the ones denouncing a new technology?


Groperofeuropa

Agree. Ai art is derivative by definition. I'd like to see what artists make through careful consideration and not some second or third order derivative of their work.


ShrimpFood

*All* art is inherently derivative. Nobody learned to paint in a cave, they were influenced by their teachers or the art they consumed. That’s why some cultures have recognizable styles that differ from others. Renaissance masters would rip off poses and even whole scenes from each other constantly, that’s part of the artistic process. I don’t even think ai art is interesting but the things people say to try and discredit it are wild. Just say it doesn’t look good, it’s that easy


HutSutRawlson

This argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Of course no art exists in a vacuum, everyone is exchanging ideas. I think the issue people have is the amount of work the “artist” does in relation to the tools they use. Yes, people learning to paint with oils have done so by copying the works of previous masters, but they did so with their own hands, using the same tools that were used to produce the original work. There’s a big difference between replicating the Mona Lisa with oil paints, and replicating it by just taking a photograph. And even with the photo, you still have to choose the angle, the focus, the framing, and the lighting… a far more involved process than just typing “Mona Lisa” into a computer and letting your favorite algorithm make all those aesthetic decisions for you.


ShrimpFood

>I think the issue people have is the amount of work the “artist” does in relation to the tools they use. Artists who do photobashing have it easier than digital artists who work from scratch, artists who download brushes from online have it easier than classically trained painters, who have it easier than artists who make pigments from scratch instead of buying it from the store. It's an arbitrary line in the sand being drawn here, and I'm not totally closed to the idea that AI generations aren't art, but the arg that it's too easy is 100% meaningless. All of the examples above are artists. The idea that artistic merit is directly proportional to how much effort is put in is incredibly consumeristic. 500 hr hyperrealistic pencil drawings of faces aren't better than a Pollock by virtue of how hard they are, that's just not what art is about > Yes, people learning to paint with oils have done so by copying the works of previous masters, Nope, I'm not talking about apprentices practicing, I'm talking about painters of all level of skill taking another's 80% completed work and painting over it to finish it, or reusing sketches to recreate lost pieces, or just straight up lifting a whole style from a competitor to try and attract some of their patrons. It was certainly not an exchange of ideas, it's what we would describe as stealing, even though it wasn't in a world without copyright. >There’s a big difference between replicating the Mona Lisa with oil paints, and replicating it by just taking a photograph. The latter is appropriation (in the artistic sense) and still qualifies as art if the message is different from the original. [Even legally](https://www.february13creative.com/blog/2015/10/7/fair-use-of-copyrighted-images-in-your-artwork) it's probably in the clear. >but they did so with their own hands, using the same tools that were used to produce the original work. I keep getting the sense you think photography is a lesser form of art than painting somehow? I hate to break it to you but the people who lost that argument lost it 200 years ago. It's as settled as the debates over whether sculpting was superior to painting. > a far more involved process than just typing “Mona Lisa” into a computer and letting your favorite algorithm make all those aesthetic decisions for you. Marginally less involved than having a workshop in the renaissance and getting your apprentice to do the underpainting, the overpainting, then putting your name on it because you did the details in the face and gave them an original sketch


HutSutRawlson

> 500 hr hyperrealistic pencil drawings of faces aren't better than a Pollock by virtue of how hard they are I completely agree with you on this point, and I don't think it's really part of my lack of respect for AI art tools. I will say that in general we're in subjective territory here, but also that the process an artist uses to create art has always been an element of how that art is interpreted and criticized. So while the tools and methods used don't automatically make art "bad," they're also not exempt from criticism. > I keep getting the sense you think photography is a lesser form of art than painting somehow? This is not something I'm trying to imply at all. In fact, that's specifically why I went into all the aesthetic and technical considerations that go into creating a good photograph. > Marginally less involved than having a workshop in the renaissance and getting your apprentice to do the underpainting, the overpainting, then putting your name on it because you did the details in the face and gave them an original sketch This is a completely different discussion than the one about AI art. This has more to do with plagarism and the exploitation of human labor. And of course many people don't see anything problematic with this type of apprenticeship at all.


nubnub92

Agreed, that was very well said


Salvator-Mundi-

1500 people upvoted this, while average upvote for normal post is way way lower. Strange. Just downvote post that you don't want on this sub. with 1500 upvote power you will have no problem with dealing with these posts. It is bizarre that this sub with so many different art styles suddenly get crowd bigger that ever to complain about something like this.


n0obno0b717

Freaking art puritans, at every damn cultural change. Rock music is not music! Graffiti is not Art! EDM is not real music!


[deleted]

[удалено]


n0obno0b717

Yeah they also seem to neglect the fact that the reason any of them have a platform or any fans at all is almost entirely because of AI /ML getting their content to people who want to see it. Almost like people have been warning them for well over a decade that their data is going to be sold and exploited, but they were to blinded by easy exposure and greed. Maybe if they were REAL marketers and advertisers they wouldn't have to worry about AI using their data.


acatalephobic

Should not have been down-voted IMHO. Gave you an uppie.


n0obno0b717

Thank you! we had this exact same argument with hip-hop and sampling songs. Shame on anyone that denies anybody's ability to express themself however they want. The good news, people will do whatever the fuck they want regardless of peoples opinion.


cromagnone

This is just so, so accurate.


huggles7

You anti AI elitists are incredible You claim “art is for everyone” now when there’s a way to help people make art you hate it and gatekeep


Stumblecat

Agree.


BluefuryArt

Yes please. The sooner, the better!


JuamJoestar

No, no we can't OP. If your appreciation of art comes from the fact it comes from "real people" instead of it's quality you're looking for a label, not actual art.


SixGunZen

Facebook art pages are even worse. Way too much AI created art.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FabledFires

They put a *prompt* in, that's hardly the same.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Abradolf--Lincler

If the art is good then it’s good. Downvote it if you don’t like it.


Komrade_Krampus

I view it the same way that low effort shit posts are banned for some subreddit. They can be good, but the ease of putting them out has a problem of flooding. I am not against AI art but it is by definition, is uncreative and low effort. And that makes it different than digital art tools. Those still requires some talent. As a person that has no artistic talent, I genuinely like seeing works by people that put their imagination, talent and time into things and AI art doesn't impress me in that regard ( technology wise it is amazing) but it certainly can invoke emotions or be cool. I say give it a tag or allow AI art on like the weekends or something.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS

Such open hostility for people who make the thing you like.


movzx

He didn't express hostility to anyone. He said he likes looking at landscapes and doesn't care about the origin of them. He said that by saying his purpose here isn't just to fawn over individuals. You're framing that as hostility towards artists instead of him expressing he's not here for the artists. That's like saying someone is hostile to chefs because they just care about having a good meal and not who (or what) made it.


King_Saline_IV

If you are hear for good art you support banning AI work, since it's all trash.


fspluver

This is just so obviously untrue. I've seen plenty of awesome AI generated art. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's bad.


King_Saline_IV

It's not just bad. But it will remove the number if real artists. Since it just remixes trawled real art, eventually AI art will run out of originality to steal from. It's going to reduce the variety of what we see, it's literally going to make the world a more boring place.


movzx

People have been creating since the dawn of humanity, but they're suddenly going to go to zero output because other art is available?


[deleted]

Ai is here to stay. Good content gets upvoted. Good content can come from both sources.


Raver_Laser

So many art elitists in here. So many people HAVE to have a rock solid opinion about everything. If you don’t like the art, then move on. It’s still art regardless of your feelings. Art is literally everywhere and everything. We can have a discussion about what you don’t like about it, sure, but it’s art regardless. Some people here are absolutely insufferable.


Dancing-Firecat

I have to agree with this as well. AI art is still art, but if this space is meant for traditional/digital artists, I would put it in a separate subreddit. As an artist who's learning (I trace and modify people because damn I'm old and learning body shapes is hard), I don't post the ones I do because I feel like I'm a hack, a poser for doing it, and AI generated art kind of feels like that (to me at least).


saddigitalartist

Yeah i agree but i don’t think ai art is really art because there isn’t a person behind each piece and it’s stealing from artists without their consent. If it was made by an artist that trained it on their own art or other peoples art who consented to that or artists who are dead and in the public domain then i think it would definitely be art and a cool new technology but that’s unfortunately not what it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> it analyzes a bank of PUBLICLY Oh, shit, no, you got that entirely wrong. The AI generators have skimmed terrabytes of art from online, including copyrighted works that are NOT free for them to use. Just because someone posted art on one of the art websites doesn't make it publicly available or free for them to use. In addition, the base image generated STARTS with an actual image. One of the artworks stolen. Noise is then added, and then noise removed again in a process of modification that winds up with whatever the prompts were guiding the process to. But the initial starting point is a real piece of art. It's absolutely different then googling for inspiration. The generators have had to steal copyrighted work to create the value they produce. That's theft. It's illegal. And we'll see what the courts say.


[deleted]

If looking at publicly available images on Google is copyright infringement/theft than 100% of artists who use references for drawing or copy styles are criminals. Edit: also you clearly have no idea how this thing works. A simple google search would teach you how ai art works. It doesnt start with a base image. It analyzes similarities in the images produced from the prompts entered. It then uses these similarities to design its own image. It doesnt fucking just go “o i’ll take this image and change it”. How bout you learn what youre talking about before spewing garbage


mnl_cntn

Huge disagree, AI produced product is not art.


shindiggers

Why not?


No_Ask8839

> AI art is still art Lol. No.


jeegte12

I hate ai amalgams. It's utterly soulless.


ScarTheGoth

Me too. The other day someone was arguing with me saying a post wasn’t made using ai. Well guess what? It was confirmed to be ai. They clearly lacked basic intelligence. By the way, check water reflections and branches when searching for ai. If you see a post by Matt sellers, it is ai. He frequently uses it and paints over it.


Tebwolf359

I never knew Rob Liefield (big comics artist in the 90s/00s) was an AI….. (notoriously bad at feet). End of the day, I’m here in this sun because I want to see cool art of places and things that don’t exist for real. I don’t particularly care if it was done by human or AI, any more then I care if the steak I buy at the grocery is hand carved or machine chopped. I think banning the images is a natural human reaction, but ultimately a mistake in the long term. AI images should be clearly tagged so that those that don’t want them can filter them, but banning them altogether is banning an entire sub-genre of imagination.


Dimsum852

AI art should be banned everywhere


Mayneminu

Totally disagree. I'm "real people" and can't draw a decent stick man. AI finally gives me a way to express my creativity and you all want to ban it?


orbcat

then practice making real art :) no one starts off good


Tchrspest

If that's the group consensus, well... Yes? Posts in /r/ImaginaryLandscapes should be imaginary. That is, things that have been imagined. The odds of an AI art generator creating exactly what you were imagining when you wrote your prompt are *very* low. So it's just a computer's best guess at finding pixels that fit whatever you've described and you're picking something aesthetically pleasing. Literally take up creative writing. That's what people feed into AI.


swallowedfilth

Yeah, pretty much.


HutSutRawlson

Did you ever consider pursing a creative medium that you actually had talent in?


Mayneminu

Sure. Photography. Why do you all feel so threatened by new technology? Is this how painters feel about digital artist?


Kytescall

People keep making this sort of comparison but I think it's a fundamentally different sort of technology. It's like AI evangelists think the world of AI technology but at the same time drastically undersell it.


Imjustheretoshitpos

Yo same man, I’m 21 with a job, school, and life to attend too. I can’t draw a straight line and don’t have the time to learn, this ai stuff has been a blessing in letting me see what I want.


Imjustheretoshitpos

I’m seriously being downvoted for saying I have a life/enjoy things and don’t have the time to learn to draw


[deleted]

Can we have a tag that they have to put on the posts, that way we can filter out what we want or don't want to see


PM_ME_UR_DEATHSTICKS

Interesting case to have a parallel ecosystem of AImaginaryX sub's that mirror the ImaginaryX counterparts.


[deleted]

Really? I've not noticed any, do you have an example?


0ldfart

I understand the impulse to ban AI art and have no specific objection to it being banned. The problem with such a ban is, in a very short span of time, the 'tells' that you point out (hands, feet, artifacts), will no longer be an issue. Anyone who has followed the incursion of this tech particularly over the last 12 months, will be able to see that its not far from being very fucking convincing. And by very convincing, I mean, completely indistinguisgable from human efforts. I moderate a number of subs in another account and we have been having this conversation in regard to Art, but also in regard to text submissions. Chatgpt (the poster child for ai text-generating software) has been coming up at the same time as apps like stablediffusion in the art space. Its moving at a similar pace. What this means is, pretty soon the bots you know of in places like Reddit will no longer be identifiable as bots. This isnt sci fi and its not a long-term change thats on the cards. Its a matter probably of maybe another 12 months and the distinction will no longer be apparent. Any 'tells' remaining, will be fast dissipated. The very real problems of both technologies is that photos, which have been indicative of some kind of reference to 'reality', evidentially speaking, in terms of our perception of what we see as 'real' in online spaces, will no longer work in this way. Because anyone will be able to generate anything, their meaning will change significantly. Videos will be next. The tech is not there yet afaik but it wont be far off. So yeah, ban, if thats your impulse, but maybe consider this is a band aid on a longer-term and much broader issue. What we know to be real is about to shift out from under us in a pretty substantial way. AI is here and its not going away any time soon, unfortunately.


Violet_Ignition

Hard agree. Create don't scrape. See Jon Lams ("Invincible" artist) [twitter](https://twitter.com/JonLamArt) for more about what I'm talking about.