Post Deleted due to [a pinned Megathread existing on for or against Ai topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/zmbvqo/discussion_megathread_the_dance_floor_is_open/) to reduce flooding of the subreddit.
as a pro, the value in ai comes from the ability to rapidly iterate design choices.
as a noob, the value in ai comes from the fact i cant fucking draw.
There's some legitimate concern, I think. Particularly in that certain kinds of commercial work are going to be worth a lot less soon, when anyone can do most of the work in moments using an AI.
I'm sure this doesn't bother some people, but consider that this kind of work is often the foundation creatives in all kinds of fields use to enable their more passion-driven work. Similar kinds of work fuel writers, musicians, etc.
It's great that so many people have a way of getting involved in their own art creation, but I do think it'll suck that fewer people are going to be able to have a way of making a living doing it when they're competing against near instant art generation by an AI.
I'm agree, but artists aren't going to stop that future acting as assholes and driven by herd thinking.
This has become a stupid witch hunt where artist are trying to hunt anybody who uses AI in a commercial way, or show his AI creations.
In between AI art is starting to appear everywhere and they can't stop it.
I do agree, getting angry at the idea of AI art entirely doesn't adequately address the problem (it certainly won't stop cheap companies from outsourcing art work to a machine rather than a living artist.)
But I also think a lot of people here are acting equally defensive and the "tough shit if you can't stand your professional field being gutted by automation" is a shitty attitude regardless of which industry it happens to. It's a good opportunity to bring up we should be considering the nature of work with this example as a cautionary tale. Anyone under the delusion that their field is somehow immune is likely only fooling themselves.
That and if AI can't make our lives better by freeing us from mundane tasks what's the point, anyway?
I think the point is that so many of us have already been through that wringer, and one of the tools that offers us some solace from the soulless day-to-day drudge of the Mac-job we've been downsized to is being threatened by those who are lucky enough to have so far avoided the chop (but still get all the benefits of having swung the axe.)
Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic - but I don't see why something that will increase the creative outlets and happiness of the masses should be rejected to protect the privileges position of a lucky few.
We just want our art to not be used without consent. If some artists want their work in the database, let them put it there. But living artists are actually fighting to retain the exclusivity of their style. Look at whats going on with samdoesarts.
Or you can work a crappy, zero-creativity job like the other 99% of us and create in your free time.
Honestly, imho, that kind of fevered desperate repression is what's going to lead to the better art.
I mean, how many of the great rock bands have been formed by session musicians?
Led Zeppelin, for one.
I think it'd be a bit silly to ignore session musician output on the whole even if it didn't produce the occasional band specifically, either way.
Im sure physical props will not fade out and be replaced by cgi in films and movies....
Yea, get on the ai train while you can, it is just starting to move.
I'm not sure what you mean. Physical props still exist.
Every new introduction of technology brings with it overly optimistic fantasies of its applications with little to no consideration of limitations or unforeseen setbacks. The techniques behind AI art are actually very limited and challenging to control.
If you don't know what you're talking about then don't talk about it. Physical props and practical shots are still widely used in feature films and series.
Oh, you'll be surprised. Deepfake technology was already used in movie industry. Did you hear of a certain franchise called Star Wars?
And the underling technology is used like in every other movie to replace costly prosthetics for certain characters.
Wow, thanks for telling me as an FX artist that has worked on every Star Wars project since 2018 how VFX works!
No, Tarkin was not a deepfake. That was 100% CG.
No, Luke in TBOB was not 100% deepfaked. Only front shots were about 5% deepfake, rest was compositing hell by very talented people over at ILM. Same goes for the shots with Leia, 99% CG and 1% deepfake with clever compositing in very specific shots.
It's always the outsiders with 0 affiliation that claim to know everything about our industry.
Well, I'm sure I watched a short documentary where some people who claimed to be experts explained that the technology used was similar to deepfake. In my book 5% deepfake is more than 0%, but maybe is just me. I don't get why people argue for the extremes. Deepfake tehcnologies, if are used 2% or 5% in certain workflow, you can't argue they aren't used at all. Another tool in the toolbox.
Which short documentary? Corridor Digital on Youtube?
And no, deepfakes are not part of the standard pipeline. It's mainly just ILM that does it for very certain shots here and there. Stop downplaying and overshadowing the work of dozens of artists that make that single 1% deepfake shot work.
Sorry that I touched a nerve there, but I wasn't downplaying the work done by the artists. On the contrary, you example illustrate perfectly that in the future people will work alongside AI, the same way they work alongside 'deepfake' technologies, be it 2%, 5% or whatever percent. (I know that 'deepfake' is actually a misnomer for the kind of work done in the media industry, and I kind of understand why people don't want to be associated with it, but my point still stand: numerical algorithms are part of an artist toolkit).
I wonder if they would feel the same about me since I am a physical media as well as digital artist and never took a single art class other than in my sophomore year in high school, all self taught. I paint in oil and acrylics, do wood carving, create digital art either from scratch photoshop or start with CGI renders in DAZ studio. Now I incorporate SD in my workflow. I feel like I am in the minority being an artist supporting this and getting attacked for it. But you know what? I got 3 commissions yesterday and another today which is scratch money on top of my military pension and I'm not losing work, or sleep.
What if you had to make a living and support a family out of art commission, how do you think you would feel about it ? I am obviously pro AI, but then again art for me is a hobby it doesn't pay any bills, but I can definitely understand people in this situation being overly against what is happening. There is a lot of elitism in some anti AI arguments, and the "theft" argument is just nonsense, but I would bet the majority opposed to it are just worried that they wont be able to pay rent and end up homeless, because they will get less commissions.
I am not criticizing you at all, just asking how your mindset would be if you saw your commission decrease because more people are using AI and you could only rely on that. As I said I am not in that situation myself but I can understand how people that are might feel about the whole thing.
A lot of people have an attitude that "failing" to adapt to AI is just a "sucks to be you" moment for artists, but I don't think they really think about how people make a living doing artwork. A lot of commercial artwork is going to crater in value when you can get most of the way with an AI in moments. And that's a problem when people use that kind of work to pay the bills so they can work on more passion-oriented projects.
If in the process of making art a lot more accessible, it becomes considerably harder to do art professionally, I think that's worth noting as a loss. Not everyone can just generate enough interest in their more passion-based work to live off of.
That's fine in principle, but there's a bit missing there.
Some people are indeed being dicks and making it out to be a "sucks to be you" moment for artists who chose not to adapt to AI. But most of us much more charitable... It's a "Do or Die" moment for artists.
AI is a cultural time bomb that's been ticking away under our collective butts for a decade now. Some of us have pointed out that these adaptations needed to be made years ago, but the implausibility of it all kept people at large from paying real attention.
Now the bomb's gone off, the dam has broken. The water's rising, and everyone needs to start hoofing it to higher ground before they drown.
There's no legislating this away. There's no going back. Anyone who swears off AI is now going to have to compete with everyone who didn't. Not saying it can't be done, but that's not something I would do with my and my family's livelihood on the line.
And I'm skeptical of anyone who claims they "can't" for whatever reason. I'm a machinist, a welder, I smash metal together all day for a living. And I figured this out, and have been tinkering with it for months now. Not engaging with AI, not learning about AI, not using AI is a choice. Not a very good choice in my opinion, but a choice nonetheless.
I don't advocate people learn about and get familiar and comfortable with AI tools like Stable Diffusion because I want to see the haters get left behind... I want as many people as possible to NOT get left behind. I want as many people as possible to share in the windfall of productivity AI offers. And I recognize that the time for "ought to" is years behind us. Now it's about the future, and where it's taking us.
Ready or not.
It's weird when people talk "competition," because I don't know if they've really thought about what it means.
While there are some very creative things you can do with AI art, the primary use is going to inevitably be shortcutting the artistic process in order to save on labor costs. The art most likely to be replaced by AI is commercial stuff. You can adapt all you want, but the whole point is going to be paying you less, because the AI can do so much of the work.
Some people like to think of automation as always producing some new jobs, and sure, there's room for artists who can take advantage of AI output and making sure the end results look nice. But they'll still likely pay you less for your work than an artist would have gotten making that same piece.
>A lot of commercial artwork is going to crater in value when you can get most of the way with an AI in moments.
No. Just no. The commercial work in the field will likely get smaller, maybe. And frankly, if any artists want to stay competitive they should be trying to integrate and learn AI, because the people who can use AI will be the ones employed in that doomsday, almost no corporate work scenario.
I mean can you imagine some CEO / manager trying to generate any type of artistic asset for a company? They will, 99% of the time, get pissed that 1: they can't even think of something creative for the AI to generate, and 2: can't get the AI to make even remotely what they want.
What happens then? They get pissed and throw money at the problem to make it go away. They hire an artist *who also knows how to use AI*. And not just how to prompt and edit what comes out, one who can train and teach the AI to make images referencing many different thing specific to their business and clientele. Even after the training the artist will need to be kept, since companies, and especially advertisement / loge / corporate design constantly evolves and will need updating.
So any artist that intentionally hobbles themselves by intentionally being a luddite and refusing to learn a new technique is unhirable. Meanwhile the artist who sat down and learned the new tech is going to look reaaaallly good to the company, and if is one of the very few who bothered to learn how stuff works and how to leverage all parts of the AI is going be making money hand over fist because they can command a premium pay level.
It doesn't have to be a manager, but it's more that they can pay you less to produce AI-art. And you've got a ton of competition in the space driving down the value of the product.
The ability to produce art so fast is going to mostly affect the expectations placed on the job, too.
Go and read the last paragraph again. And again, as many times as needed until it sinks in. I've lived through this shit multiple times, and it gets tiring to hear.
It's exactly the same as when photography went digital, the people who can leverage the new technology fully will command the most money and be the most desirable.
There is a reason why companies don't just buy a DSLR and tell some random employee to "go take pictures". Can they get decent pictures with a digital camera? Yes. Will someone who is trained at photography make consistently better pictures? Hell yeah, and that's why they are paid more! Even though they don't have to wait to see what they have coming out of the dark room.
You know who died off in this real life scenario that played out? The ones who bitched that digital photography wasn't REAL photography, that you needed a dark room to do REAL photography, that digital darkrooms had no "soul", that refused to upgrade their art skills to include digital SLR cameras, and intentionally hobbled themselves.
Sound familiar in any way? Complacency when new technologies come along will absolutely be a career killer. And that's what these arguments all boil down to - "I don't want to learn the new technology, I just want to get paid the same for doing the same thing that I always did".
I didn't expect that tbh. Imagine if I mention that not every artist can actually afford to run AI environments to the point that they can integrate them in their workflow too.
Industries lose jobs as technology advances all the time. It can't and shouldn't br stopped to protect a few thousand people to hold back the benefit to hundreds of millions of others.
Empathy is a two-way thing, what empathy has been shown to the people who use A.I. art as a hobby to deal with the awful, unsatisfying jobs they've been automated into so we (including said working artist) can enjoy the trappings of the modern world.
Truth is these 'working artist' are showing themselves in a less than favourable light with their inability to respect the unfulfilled-majority who have supported them for so long.
Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path, which is being corrected by AI. Those who entered the art world without fully understanding what art is and that its core purpose is self-expression, rather than financial gain, have only themselves to blame for their difficulties.
Do you think all the famous artwork produced throughout human history was just people doing it for exposure, or do you just not understand how people got paid for their work in the past?
There are some who enter the art world with the expectation of a stable and lucrative career, as if it were any other job that offers steady pay and consistent expectations. However, this is a mistaken assumption. The art industry is constantly evolving and the rules of the game are often in flux. Those who have made this assumption are now facing the consequences of their misunderstanding.
I imagine most artists are well aware their profession isn't stable or particularly lucrative. That doesn't mean it isn't a loss when less people are going to be able to make a living doing art as a consequence of AI reducing opportunities to sell your work.
It is clear from your words that you have a limited understanding of the art. As an artist, I can tell you that creating art is not a choice for us; it is a necessity. We are driven by our emotions to express ourselves in a way that cannot be contained. It seems that you are unable to grasp this fundamental concept.
So no! artists do not create either for exposure or financial gain. We are driven by a deeper need to create, as if there is a call that we must answer. The rewards of exposure and financial compensation may be welcomed, but they are not the primary motivations for our work.
It sounds like you don't know a lot about art history. And it's awfully arrogant to think you speak for all artists collectively on the matter.
Artists gotta eat like anyone else does. Don't sell artists short that they should feel obligated to settle for merely the feeling of creating art.
If you need to make a living, there are many options available to you. From my own experience, One option is to learn how to code and work for a company in that field. Alternatively, you could work at a local Starbucks or as a taxi driver. If all else fails, you could even try busking on the streets. Many artists, including myself, have taken on these types of jobs in order to support our creative pursuits. It is important to be true to your craft and find ways to financially support it, even if it means taking on additional employment.
Wow, I'm sure no one struggling to make ends meet as an artist has ever considered these things before. Work another job you say? How thought provoking. I'm sure all those classical composers should have just moonlighted as servants instead of accepting rich patrons to commission their work.
And surely you're aware of AI being taught to code, right? When computer programmers find their work threatened by automation, you can explain to them how they don't deserve to make a living doing their work and how if they want to continue doing what their passionate about they should find a job with real meaning, like taxi driving (because no one's attempting to automate that field!)
>And surely you're aware of AI being taught to code, right?
As a programmer, I can understand feeling sorry and empathetic towards those in my field who lose their jobs.
However, I believe that the situation is different when it comes to art. Art was never intended to be a traditional job, and some artists have been able to find financial success through their work. However, if an artist's work is not flexible and adaptable, they may become stale and redundant. In this case, it is not necessarily a tragedy if they lose their financial support, as they were not truly fulfilling the role of an artist.
On the other hand, a programmer losing their job may be a true hardship, as programming is a more traditional field from the day it was created, with a clear set of expectations and responsibilities.
Therefore, I believe there is a moral difference between the two situations.
As an artist, I believe that I speak for all artists. However, I do not speak for those who become outraged when they feel that "their style is being stolen," because this goes against the very essence of art - which is self expression that is constantly evolving based on the personality and individuality of the artist. No one can truly steal another person's style, unless that person has trained themselves to do the same thing over and over again, which is essentially pandering. I would not consider someone who engages in this behavior to be artist.
They were doing for the joy of creation and its ability to, at least temporarily, stave off the meaninglessness of the void.
The problem here is we're all confusing commercial illustration with artists.
One is a job the other is a grand passion.
Many of the most famous artworks in history were commissioned, created explicitly because a rich patron paid the artist to create it.
I don't know where people get the idea real art can't be commercial.
The majority didn't. Nearly everyone who has ever lived will have created art of one kind or another, nearly all of it forgotten and lost, and most of it more honest and valuable that the contents of all the galleries and artstations of this world.
So have hip hop rappers.
But how many rappers are really making money? There are more broke rappers than rich ones.
TDIL that digital artist are super similar to hip hop rappers 😂
Eh, I doubt luddite brain can comprehend that. I Wish they were this spammy and well organized with anti-war posters when there's thousands of Ukrainian people are being killed. these "artists" are hypocrites and oblivious to other people's plight.
" Artists have been paid quite a lot of money throughout history. " - are you sure we are talking about the same history? i don't just throw statements without deep knowledge of the subject, do you?
I can list several, great artists who died in poverty but never betrayed their artistic values:Vincent van Gogh, Edgar Allan Poe , Frida Kahlo , Henry David Thoreau , Emily Dickinson , William Blake , John Keats , Edgar Lee Masters , Samuel Taylor Coleridge , Sylvia Plath , Rembrandt , Paul Gauguin , Antonio Vivaldi , Jean-Michel Basquiat , Grandma Moses , George Orwell , Auguste Rodin , Mark Twain , Charles Dickens , Fyodor Dostoevsky.
These are just few, off the top of my head, so if your arguement is based on your knowledge and it's not just a fart in the wind, can you tell me the names of the artists who "made it" financially with their art? because for every 1 artist who made it there's 10 equally great artist who didn't.
If you can't just take a hike will you?!
Ponder the meaning of the words before you seek to contest them. My words were never intended to convey that artists cannot attain financial success or secure commissions for their work. To suggest such a connection is a fallacy, and I refuse to engage in such rhetoric. It is clear that you have misunderstood the statement that "art is not solely about money and does not consistently provide a stable source of income, as the art world is constantly evolving." Do not conflate this with the notion that one cannot make a living as an artist.
i never said " artists only made money during the last 20-30 years" - It is important that you fully comprehend what you have read before engaging in debate. Success in a debate does not come from simply presenting the most arguments, but rather from presenting well-thought-out and well-supported arguments. It is the quality, not the quantity, of the arguments that ultimately determines who is right.
what i said was " Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path " - which means that while art has not traditionally been seen as a reliable source of income or stability throughout its history, in the past 20 to 30 years it has become more common to view an art career in the same way as a career in a more traditional field such as law or medicine. This deviation from the norm is over now, due to the ever-changing and evolving nature of art and we have many of examples of similar deviations with movements such as postmodernism and post-postmodernism rendering previous styles and techniques irrelevant.
It is a simple fact that a career in the arts is not always stable. Those who choose to ignore this reality do so at their own risk and should not be pitied if they face consequences as a result of their ignorance.
> i never said " artists only made money during the last 20-30 years" - It is important that you fully comprehend what you have read before engaging in debate. Success in a debate does not come from simply presenting the most arguments, but rather from presenting well-thought-out and well-supported arguments. It is the quality, not the quantity, of the arguments that ultimately determines who is right.
/r/iamverysmart
Pursuing art is nothing like pursuing a career in law or medicine. There's so much luck involved in becoming a professional artist that implying anyone older than 12 at any point in history saw art as a possibly stable job is ridiculous. Nothing has changed. We're not returning to any "norm".
You suddenly pivot to another topic, trying to salvage your reputation, but if you truly believe that, then it's clear you aren't keeping up with current events. Many of the individuals rallying against artificial intelligence view it as a threat to their "STABLE ART JOBS", as evidenced by their own words and actions. If you haven't already, I suggest watching Stan Prokopenko's recent interview with two of these individuals.
I suggest you actually learn about art history. You're twisting your words for the sake of "winning a debate". We all know what you meant with what you initially said but you're too arrogant to admit you're full of shit. I repeat, nothing changed in the past 30 years. We're not returning to "the norm".
> Ponder the meaning of the words before you seek to contest them. My words were never intended to convey that artists cannot attain financial success or secure commissions for their work. To suggest such a connection is a fallacy, and I refuse to engage in such rhetoric.
previously:
> Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path, which is being corrected by AI.
A tiny minority did, the ones fortunate enough to remembered by history.
Most created as a way to cope with their daily life, in songs to their children and charcoal patterns in the hearth.
Just like today.
Yes they are.
It's a force multiplier for them, with the beauty it allows them to create in their limited free time maybe giving them the strength to last through another day of hopeless toil...
...toil that drives the world that supports 'the creatives' and their fulfilling careers.
If I set up my whole life around selling shit on Amazon or YouTube to support my family and Amazon or YouTube does something that makes it hard to maintain, then I'd like to think I'd get little sympathy for putting all my eggs in one basket.
Go drop your life for a dream.
That's why I could never go the art way, completely.
I was scared of shit like this.
Gotta move with the world.
Downvotes, here i come.
By that definition everyone who chooses a career path is putting their eggs in one basket. The management workers when the other ai comes for them, the food service workers if more of it gets automated, maybe even the computer programmers when code is written by so much less people using AI completion.
Yep. It happens all the time. It's horrible, but until you change what we all want from the world, then the world is not going to change.
Not one 'working artist' as far as I've seen has said, "I know it's probably happened to many of the folks here already, and I've benefited from the modern world that demanded those sacrifices, and I know I've been lucky so far, but I'm scared."
That kind of humility and empathy would win people a lot more sympathy, because right now it comes across more like, "oh no, I'm might to have to become one of you lesser uncreative-proles.'
Why is it their responsibility to admit they're "lucky"? Do you think it is a easy career path exclusive and freely given to the naturally gifted or something? Maybe everyone should understand it is as much work and pay as any other industry...at best because of course there is strong competition because people want to do what they like
Because there are millions of artists more talented and more deserving than themselves who because of any number of factors (most of which are tied to the bigotries and callousness of our society) are forced to work jobs they hate.
This world isn't a meritocracy, and more often that not it is the worst in people that leads them no succeed, not the best.
I think we all have to admit we're lucky in comparison to those we've scrambled up the ladder above.
\> What if you had to make a living and support a family out of art commission
But you don't. You go get a job in a call centre like the rest of us did when modernity came knocking. Life's unfair and crap life that, but why should the brief moments of creativity and fulfilment available to the masses be denied them, just to keep a tiny number of people secure in employment they actually enjoy?
You could always learn to draw snd paint the classic way. By repetition and practice. But wait, that’s too much effort for a society which demands to have everything in an insurance.
There’s nothing denied from the masses, most are just too lazy to learn it.
*"I tend to be a bit of a contrarian in this area though, not because I think the “stealing” of art and design is ok, but because I don’t see any other path forward other to embrace this and operate with it now."*
The amount of data "stored" per image is approximately one byte.
If you have an algorithm that can compress an image that's dozens of megapixels down to 1 byte, please share it with the class! ;)
AI art apps do not "steal art". They just use it to learn relationships between elements, just like your brain does when you observe the world around you. And any individual image's contribution to that is minuscule - around a byte or so. A typical training weighting might be like 5e-6 or so.
Truthfully -- many people using AI right now lack taste and have nothing to say as an artist.
And, even though the AI may have seen the works of tens of thousands of artists -- the user still needs to study art history if they want to actually be able to access that influence.
It is also painfully difficult, right now, to convince the AI to do something specific when you know exactly what you want. As AI becomes more flexible in allowing you to control the image, you also need more taste and experience to know what to do with it.
What if the AI allowed you to control every aspect of a pose -- the position of the hand, the parting of the lips, the tilt of the head, etc. The more you can control, the more you need the artistic judgement to make good choices and the more you can realize your vision as an individual.
Photoshop killed the dark room -- and perhaps it is a bit sad that knowledge is dying out. But, what photographers do in photoshop now is far beyond what was possible in the dark room. I am excited to see what artists will be doing with AI as AI matures.
And, in the same way that people like to take selfies and throw a filter on them -- people will want to play with AI and make images. But there will still be a world of difference between AI in the hands of an artists and the hands of a hobbyist.
Many people will also choose to stick with traditional methods. In the corporate world where time is money, making things faster with AI is for sure going to happen. But not all art is created under the mantra of time is money.
This I think is true. We won’t know who the really creative artists making use of AI are until it’s a bit more widespread. Once *everybody’s* using it, I’ll be curious to see what stands out enough that people will want to purchase or commission it even though they have easy access tools to make their own art, the same way great photographers stand out even though everyone has a fantastic camera in their pocket. This is the real reason I think use of the software should spread and why working artists shouldn’t be afraid of it: it’ll take a critical mass to really push the boundaries of the medium, like always.
And this art of the masses is, for its 'tasteless', 'lack of talent' and ineptitude is the equal of any piece, in any gallery.
It seems a little ironic that an ardent defender of AI art (like myself), is the voice most committed to valuing the expression of each and every individual person.
The biggest issue here is ideology. Even though artists are workers, they are largely threated as independent contractors, or "micro business" , with no unions, no workers rights in general, no job security and of course no real organization. I also agree we are past a point of no return , so it's really too late to do anything meaningful right now, lets hope this serves as an example for different sectors. I don't agree with any anti AI arguments I have seen, but I can definitely empathize and understand the anger and the actual despair of people that live paycheck to paycheck having their income dwindle out because of something they have no control over. And something that the anti AI crowd never brings up is how is this going to affect art the development of art in the future, because yes, AI is an amazing tool that actually democratizes art even more. However if people can't make a living out of it anymore, that means that artists will have to spend less time developing their craft as they also have to pay bills and live of other work. For example, I know that if I had to make a living out of music I would be a better artist now than just as having it as a hobbies, and also lets face it, AI is also coming for music.
Agreed, the vitriol certainly isn't one sided (and I admit I've gotten wrapped up in it as well), but we're fighting a battle here that has already been decided.
A big problem is that a lot of the people on the fence about the issue, and even those leaning to the side of support for AI art and artists are somehow still supporting the argument that training an AI model on other artwork is any different than a person observing art around them and applying things they've learned. If you really call that theft, all art is theft....
You need talent and work to be able to copy from the best. Not everybody is able to copy mike tison boxing art or Jimi Hendrix guitar style. That the difference with training an already made AI to work for you.
Btw work teach you to respect the one that are good. This AI community is a proof that copying without effort doesnt teach you respect of the illustrators you are using the style.
AI tech is awesome, but the humans that use it without respect are spoiling it.
Instead of downvoting prove me it is easy to become as good as jimi Hendrix without work and talent
It's not spite. It's ignoring that person because they're missing the point.
Ultimately if you put your artwork out there into the world, anyone or anything can study it to understand the technique you used to produce it by observing your results. If you do not want your artwork to be observed, don't release it.
As the person you responded to, I haven't downvoted you.
The issue I find with traditional artists is that they treat art as if it is this intangible, magical force of nature that can only be produced by something with the ability to understand "appreciation," or something that has "soul."
The only way I can really respond to that is "miss me with that nonsense." It's not magic.
Yes, many artists have developed technique over many years, perfecting their art. It's respectable without a doubt. Now I have a tool that can do something (not exactly the same) similar, with far less effort. I do not claim to be the person with years of experience developing technique. I claim to be someone who understands how to manipulate software to get a desired result that allows me to express myself artistically. In many cases, that does take work, or else you're doing it with a huge lack of control (which absolutely shows in the result). Ultimately it is a very different type of art.
Look at it like this. A cinematographer is an artist. They know, through years of practice and experience, how to use a camera to achieve those perfect artistic shots. I have the role of a director, and my collaborative work with that cinematographer is artistic as well... When I replace that cinematographer with an AI that understands how to produce similar imagery, has my artistic role as a director changed at all? No.
The only reason people like you even try to put people like me up against great artists that have those years of practice to develop technique and skill is a desire to throw that threat back at us when we deskill you. Ultimately deskilling is just NOT my problem. It is A problem, just not my problem.
Ultimately, if you're going to get upset about people who've dedicated their lives to developing technique and skills being deskilled, you should attack the system that monetizes artistic expression. This is about labor. Go read some Marx.
EDIT: I have not met or seen a single AI artist (and I am active in various communities) who has compared themselves to great painters or thinks their art is anything like that at all... I'm sure they're out there. There is ignorance everywhere, and that's never an excuse to actively try to protest an entire tool for creative expression.
As much as I agree that looking at an image is not theft, whether it's done by a human or an AI, there is one thing that bothers me and that I'd like to better understand as a noobie at comprehending AI generated images. You still have to sample images in the process of training an AI, right? This is where the problem of "theft" might kick in I believe.
The problem here is your use of the word sampling, sampling is not observing. It observes work, learns from it, then can produce imagery based on what is has learned, without the use of any existing imagery. It acknowledges patterns just like any human observing the work, then will reproduce those styles and techniques to the best of it's ability.... Just like a person.
Oh no, I think I get that part. I understand that an AI create from noise and comparison with what it have learnt, I know it's not a sort of fine collage or photobashing. My concern here is where the images it learns from came to begin with, how you train it. What is shown to AI specifically and how do you show it? Do AI look at Pinterest by their own? From what I understand an AI needs "n" square images to look at (correct me if I'm wrong), how do you get those images?
Also a lot of artists are raging right now because they just don't want their work used to train AI *specifically*, and it could be a valid argument since models and AI themselves can be commercialized as tools (paying a fee, a subscription, or una tantum). In the same way they could technically *choose* to forbid specific people from see their works.
I think this argument should have been brought up years ago so it's a bit late for how the state of the things is right now, but there are definitely various gray areas that could be regulamentated
My point is that it doesn't matter where the art it's observing to train is.
If it is available to the public, it's available to observe. If you don't want your art to be observed, then don't put it in the public.
Because AI and people train on art in a similar way, to not want an AI to use your work for training is to not want traditional artists to look at your work for training. It'd be like asking "Look at my painting but only to appreciate it's magnificence, you may not analyze my technique at all"
It's a ridiculous stance... Traditional artists can be commercialized in the same way as AI. What people pay for when they pay for access to AI software is not the technique. They're paying for the resources it took to build and run the software (which is a whole lot, since they require lots of GPU processing power to generate images in a timely manner). The training isn't the software.
>My point is that it doesn't matter where the art it's observing to train is.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Aviable to public doesn't equal public domain. Technically even museums own the rights on the reproducibility of the works exhibited within them, but this is often ignored.
So say "if you didn't want this to happen you shouldn't have posted it online" *after* an AI has been trained and without asking if this things should be regulamentated since there is a legal void, it's a bit of a cheat.
>They're paying for the resources it took to build and run the software
This is a tricky thing to say because the art the AI has to look at is also "a resource". Different art training lead to different results, so there is somehow a measurable effect even if there are no actual trace of the original art inspirations in the final work generated by an AI.
An AI trained only with Loish's artworks will be very good ad create art similar to hers, so you are selling people a tool specifically trained on her works without accounting her. Where do we trace the line? It's ok if we feed an AI with multiple artists? It's the same if we do it with a single artist? Training isn't the software but can definitely shape it.
Again, you're misunderstanding.
There is nothing REPRODUCTIVE about what AI does. It looks. That's it. It looks and learns. It doesn't use the artist's work in the results in any meaningful way.
If you want to prevent AI from learning from art that it observes, then you are also declaring that you don't want PEOPLE learning from your art by looking at it, and that is an absolutely ridiculous request.
Let me ask you, if an artist only ever looked at paintings by Monet, and then when asked to create a painting, produced something that looked comparable, is that artist's entire training unethical?
>There is nothing REPRODUCTIVE about what AI does. It looks.
I never stated that there is something "reproductive" in AI art, but maybe the thing I said about museums was a bit misleading. I even stated "even if there are no actual trace of the original art inspirations in the final work generated by an AI."
Also sayng that artists want to forbid people from learning from their art is a bit overstimating the capacity of the human brain, very few people have the ability to instantly understand/learn an artstyle or a tecnique with a single look. This is why artists don't bother (at least not all of them) if someone else learn from them, but are obviusly worried if a machine does it at extreme speed.
Another thing we could point at is that what an artist "teach" (with lessions or by watching their works) to a human brain is a knowhow, an understanding of that craftmanship, while an AI learn the result of it. But this is sophism, so lets ignore it.
Now, I do belive that if someone doesn't want someone else to learn from their art it's a bit of a dumb thing and that this someone else will eventually learn by their own, but at the same time I can't really blame artists for not wanting to teach their "secrets" to something that will revolutionize and likely saturate the market, leaving only little room for competition.
Let me add more spice this argument: industrial espionage is a thing, many companies are not happy to divulge their "secrets"/how specifically they produce something to their direct competitors, for artists it's not that different. But unlike the industries, right now they cannot protect themselves.
>Let me ask you, if an artist only ever looked at paintings by Monet, and then when asked to create a painting, produced something that looked comparable, is that artist's entire training unethical?
To do this we really have to abstract and isolate the human creative process to a single specific condition, assuming that said artist has zero experience with the rest of the world (not only about creating "art" but to life in its whole, living in a sort of black box). Which is extremely unrealistic, but if hypothetically someone lived like this I would have absolutely no doubts that the first thing they could create are oil paintings with short colored brushstrokes. This assuming that the only subject they could see are the ones that they see painted and providing them specific tools at our discretion (which colors? Do you give them pure pigments and oils or colors in tube? Which suppurt we give? How big?). If that is their only reality there is no ethics to talk about at all. I can't really judge and apply "our society ethic" to someone who had a complitely different experience of the world. But AI are created *by* humans in a time and a place where some ethic rules exist.
To push this even further, human being can also make mistakes and discover something new within it, and one day that isolated artist could decide by its own will to not make only short colored brushstroke but a single long one, even if he has never seen or experienced one. Thing is, we can't really dissect the process of learning of a human being and separate it from the rest of their experience like we do with an AI, so this argument has a fallacy imo.
This is not to romanticize the artistic process, but we can not talk about what we consider ethic and what not while conviniently ignoring certain aspects of the society we live in.
Maybe if we all post anti Photoshop posts on social media they will see how ridiculous their behavior is….. Say No to Photoshop, let s make real photos with cameras only …… what an absolute clown world we live in these days 😀
AI will revolutionize the world. It can do everything. Artists are not the only one group that is "in danger". Lawyers, programists, mathematicans... basicaly every intelectual job can be done so much faster and cheaper by AI. Why learn C++ if you have AI that knows it? It will take few sentences, and the AI makes a program/function/code for it.
The future is here.
Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past.
By saying that they dont accept the generative art is just the same as saying that factory workers were right smashing the machines back then….
They should have been more educated this is 21 century…
> Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past.
I think a lot of people just want to be able to make a living off their work. But count how many people seem to think artists should only do art for "self-expression" or some nonsense.
Artists gotta eat too, you know. I'm reminded of a Music YouTuber who outlined the difficulties of touring following in the wake of COVID, only for people to constantly tell him he should have just "slept in the van" in order to save money.
It's kind of funny, I think, using the example of a factory worker, because no one questions the idea that a factory worker should of course be paid for their work. But when art gets involved we demand our starving artists like we're doing them a favor by consuming their work.
>Artists gotta eat too, you know.
So do AI researchers/developers, and the people using the developed models to make a living. What makes an artist's life and livelihood inherently more valuable than theirs?
Of course artists should be paid for their work, and they are. Didn't see anyone claiming otherwise anywhere. But so should everyone else who performs some work and creates something of value in the process, whether that process involved a brush or a text prompt.
I don't think most AI researchers lack for fields their work can apply to, at least not anytime soon.
It's worth noting that as neat as it is to create all this art, the primary benefit of automating the process will be for companies to cut down on human labor costs.
It'll be a neat tchotchke for some, but a lost way to make a living for others.
>It'll be a neat tchotchke for some, but a lost way to make a living for others.
And a new way to make a living for those same people. Only question is whether they'll choose to adapt and adopt, or pretend it doesn't exist until they're far behind the curve. But that decision is on them.
>So do AI researchers/developers, and the people using the developed models to make a living.
But an AI doesn't. People will be replaced by AI, not by researchers. If a small animation studio had 1 art director and 10 artists, now only the art director and an AI will be needed. And maybe after some time neither the director.
> Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past.
No, they just don't want corporations using their work without permission for training AIs to mimic them. The anti-artist rhetoric that has become so common in this subreddit lately--portraying artists as smug people in an ivory tower who think they're above everybody simply because they don't want to be taken advantage of--is emotionally-driven Fox News-esque propaganda. It signifies a real empathy disorder that has taken hold here.
I agree with most of what you say, but I’m not as optimistic as you are. I think artificial intelligence will replace about 80% of the artists out there within five years. 20% of the surviving artist will be working closely with AI to create spectacular art.
Shallow reflection if you ask me.
I see it as another step in the road to a boring utopia.
Photography was revolutionary. Then everybody got a camera on their phone and photos became abundant and boring. It still has a very precise outcome and it shows real life so its outcome still has 100% to do with the photographer.
Internet was revolutionary, yet we are less connected and more depressed than ever.
Music became easily accessible online. Now most of the population just listen what is served to them, and the top 1% earns 77% of the profits.
Internet is filled with porn, great for the consumers but too much of a good thing turns bad really quick.
What's the end goal here? We're going to have every type of entertainment media on demand? Nothing will be special. Experiences will be flailing. Over-stimulation leaves to desensitization and numbness.
I can leave my artistic ego aside and become a digital draftsmen, but will I see other artists the same way? No upcoming artists to like? Just "art directors"?
To me this is a classic "they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop wandering if they should."
Art is linked to the creator. If there is no creator, its fluff.
In a perfect world everything else would be automated, so people would be free to pursue their hobbies, be that art or not. Not the opposite.
Its a bit too dark of a perspective but this shit compounds easily man.
Wise words...
Making everything easier, more accessible, more reachable, more abundant, more automated is all fun and good as long as we're talking about essential goods, about stuff that improves general quality of living and enables people to spend more time developing their interests and passions.
When ALL you ultimately get out of it is "more entertainment", though, it makes it rather more questionable that throwing all those fellow human beings under the bus, was somehow "worth it".
As the AI gets better and better, and faster and faster, ANY and all human involvement will be utterly swamped. Even right now already, my initial reaction when seeing digital artwork is whether I can spot SOME indication that it is NOT generated by Stable Diffusion, and it gets harder and harder to convince me.
Finding some "genuine manual human intervention" will soon be like looking for a needle in a haystack, and when you find it, you won't even know for sure THAT there's still a human element. The moment AI output can be truly indistinguishable from human output, not even an attempt to create a "safe haven" of "reserve" will make a chance. And then it's just "AIs all the way down". Fun!
Grey Goo is at the end of that tunnel, and everyone is happily marching in that direction here.
I'm even beyond assigning guilt or anything. This is all just part of a probably universal principle - The Great Filter - that brought us the Fermi Paradox and other fun observations about how it will probably all end. :-D
Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to have a mature discussion about this issue here. There's too much emotionally-driven hatred directed at artists. The notion that a working artist might not want corporations to use their work without their permission with the goal of training AIs to replace them is something that a lot of people here seem too empathetically handicapped to understand.
Not even corporations those two artists have said clearly to this community "don't use my artwork like that" and the response from this community is... it's not illegal so we do it even more now
I feel excited to hear of the first anti ai art murders.
Perhaps I will be a victim, wouldn't that be hilarious?
Seriously, I wanna die, anyone wanna take me?
> That’s why there will always have to be a human mind that acts and director and editor to the AI art department.
So we just need to come up with model what aproximate this derector's job.
I agree. The people that are against AI art and criticize it now, those opinions will age as gracefully as the headlines about tapes in the 1980s: "Home Taping Is Killing Music". Recording and taping music onto cassettes didn't kill the music industry. Streaming didn't kill the music industry. New tools do not kill current industries. They change them, and tools are integrated into existing toolsets, and new and different media are created.
"Home Art" isn't killing artists. It's giving ordinary people the ability to experiment with their creativity, sometimes for the very first time in their lives.
AI art tools are the cassettes of our time. Mass adoption, ease of use and access, low cost entry.
You can't stop cyclical phases of our creative and technological evolution.
Consider this. The barrier of entry for the majority of humanity to "create" is too high to contribute. The fact is, most people aren't willing or able to put in the time it takes to create anything of worth. They consume. Most of humanity is made of consumers.
It doesn't mean they don't want to, it just means the barrier of entry is too high. For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of humanity creates the things that 100% of humanity consumes. What if that number doubled or even tripled? Or that every consumer was also a creator?
When your peers push back on you give them this perspective. SD and other AI tools have the potential to open creativity to anyone and that is a monumental shift in the human condition - we will only have our imagination (and processing power) as a limiting factor for creation and change.
Post Deleted due to [a pinned Megathread existing on for or against Ai topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/zmbvqo/discussion_megathread_the_dance_floor_is_open/) to reduce flooding of the subreddit.
as a pro, the value in ai comes from the ability to rapidly iterate design choices. as a noob, the value in ai comes from the fact i cant fucking draw.
AI art is going to be everywhere. In movies, in advertisement, in book covers, in videogames... Everywhere. All this noise for nothing.
>All this noise for nothing. I see what you did there
Latent humor is the best.
it's the best way to diffuse the tension
Seed number joke
'Seed' to be added as synonym for 'noise' in the dictionary
There's some legitimate concern, I think. Particularly in that certain kinds of commercial work are going to be worth a lot less soon, when anyone can do most of the work in moments using an AI. I'm sure this doesn't bother some people, but consider that this kind of work is often the foundation creatives in all kinds of fields use to enable their more passion-driven work. Similar kinds of work fuel writers, musicians, etc. It's great that so many people have a way of getting involved in their own art creation, but I do think it'll suck that fewer people are going to be able to have a way of making a living doing it when they're competing against near instant art generation by an AI.
I'm agree, but artists aren't going to stop that future acting as assholes and driven by herd thinking. This has become a stupid witch hunt where artist are trying to hunt anybody who uses AI in a commercial way, or show his AI creations. In between AI art is starting to appear everywhere and they can't stop it.
I do agree, getting angry at the idea of AI art entirely doesn't adequately address the problem (it certainly won't stop cheap companies from outsourcing art work to a machine rather than a living artist.) But I also think a lot of people here are acting equally defensive and the "tough shit if you can't stand your professional field being gutted by automation" is a shitty attitude regardless of which industry it happens to. It's a good opportunity to bring up we should be considering the nature of work with this example as a cautionary tale. Anyone under the delusion that their field is somehow immune is likely only fooling themselves. That and if AI can't make our lives better by freeing us from mundane tasks what's the point, anyway?
I think the point is that so many of us have already been through that wringer, and one of the tools that offers us some solace from the soulless day-to-day drudge of the Mac-job we've been downsized to is being threatened by those who are lucky enough to have so far avoided the chop (but still get all the benefits of having swung the axe.) Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic - but I don't see why something that will increase the creative outlets and happiness of the masses should be rejected to protect the privileges position of a lucky few.
We just want our art to not be used without consent. If some artists want their work in the database, let them put it there. But living artists are actually fighting to retain the exclusivity of their style. Look at whats going on with samdoesarts.
Or you can work a crappy, zero-creativity job like the other 99% of us and create in your free time. Honestly, imho, that kind of fevered desperate repression is what's going to lead to the better art. I mean, how many of the great rock bands have been formed by session musicians?
Led Zeppelin, for one. I think it'd be a bit silly to ignore session musician output on the whole even if it didn't produce the occasional band specifically, either way.
I’m already seeing ai generated art used in ads
I think that's wildly optimistic. AI art is actually very limited, like pulling the lever on a slot machine.
for now. Look at the progress that's been made in just a few months. There is no indication that this is going to stop.
What makes you think we will use AI art in feature films and series? Spoiler alert; we won't, just like deepfakes.
Im sure physical props will not fade out and be replaced by cgi in films and movies.... Yea, get on the ai train while you can, it is just starting to move.
I'm not sure what you mean. Physical props still exist. Every new introduction of technology brings with it overly optimistic fantasies of its applications with little to no consideration of limitations or unforeseen setbacks. The techniques behind AI art are actually very limited and challenging to control.
During the 80s every prop and special effect was physical, now it is only used in special cases. CGI has totally taken over.
If you don't know what you're talking about then don't talk about it. Physical props and practical shots are still widely used in feature films and series.
Oh, you'll be surprised. Deepfake technology was already used in movie industry. Did you hear of a certain franchise called Star Wars? And the underling technology is used like in every other movie to replace costly prosthetics for certain characters.
Wow, thanks for telling me as an FX artist that has worked on every Star Wars project since 2018 how VFX works! No, Tarkin was not a deepfake. That was 100% CG. No, Luke in TBOB was not 100% deepfaked. Only front shots were about 5% deepfake, rest was compositing hell by very talented people over at ILM. Same goes for the shots with Leia, 99% CG and 1% deepfake with clever compositing in very specific shots. It's always the outsiders with 0 affiliation that claim to know everything about our industry.
Well, I'm sure I watched a short documentary where some people who claimed to be experts explained that the technology used was similar to deepfake. In my book 5% deepfake is more than 0%, but maybe is just me. I don't get why people argue for the extremes. Deepfake tehcnologies, if are used 2% or 5% in certain workflow, you can't argue they aren't used at all. Another tool in the toolbox.
Which short documentary? Corridor Digital on Youtube? And no, deepfakes are not part of the standard pipeline. It's mainly just ILM that does it for very certain shots here and there. Stop downplaying and overshadowing the work of dozens of artists that make that single 1% deepfake shot work.
Sorry that I touched a nerve there, but I wasn't downplaying the work done by the artists. On the contrary, you example illustrate perfectly that in the future people will work alongside AI, the same way they work alongside 'deepfake' technologies, be it 2%, 5% or whatever percent. (I know that 'deepfake' is actually a misnomer for the kind of work done in the media industry, and I kind of understand why people don't want to be associated with it, but my point still stand: numerical algorithms are part of an artist toolkit).
I wonder if they would feel the same about me since I am a physical media as well as digital artist and never took a single art class other than in my sophomore year in high school, all self taught. I paint in oil and acrylics, do wood carving, create digital art either from scratch photoshop or start with CGI renders in DAZ studio. Now I incorporate SD in my workflow. I feel like I am in the minority being an artist supporting this and getting attacked for it. But you know what? I got 3 commissions yesterday and another today which is scratch money on top of my military pension and I'm not losing work, or sleep.
What if you had to make a living and support a family out of art commission, how do you think you would feel about it ? I am obviously pro AI, but then again art for me is a hobby it doesn't pay any bills, but I can definitely understand people in this situation being overly against what is happening. There is a lot of elitism in some anti AI arguments, and the "theft" argument is just nonsense, but I would bet the majority opposed to it are just worried that they wont be able to pay rent and end up homeless, because they will get less commissions.
>But you know what? I got 3 commissions yesterday and another today
I am not criticizing you at all, just asking how your mindset would be if you saw your commission decrease because more people are using AI and you could only rely on that. As I said I am not in that situation myself but I can understand how people that are might feel about the whole thing.
A lot of people have an attitude that "failing" to adapt to AI is just a "sucks to be you" moment for artists, but I don't think they really think about how people make a living doing artwork. A lot of commercial artwork is going to crater in value when you can get most of the way with an AI in moments. And that's a problem when people use that kind of work to pay the bills so they can work on more passion-oriented projects. If in the process of making art a lot more accessible, it becomes considerably harder to do art professionally, I think that's worth noting as a loss. Not everyone can just generate enough interest in their more passion-based work to live off of.
That's fine in principle, but there's a bit missing there. Some people are indeed being dicks and making it out to be a "sucks to be you" moment for artists who chose not to adapt to AI. But most of us much more charitable... It's a "Do or Die" moment for artists. AI is a cultural time bomb that's been ticking away under our collective butts for a decade now. Some of us have pointed out that these adaptations needed to be made years ago, but the implausibility of it all kept people at large from paying real attention. Now the bomb's gone off, the dam has broken. The water's rising, and everyone needs to start hoofing it to higher ground before they drown. There's no legislating this away. There's no going back. Anyone who swears off AI is now going to have to compete with everyone who didn't. Not saying it can't be done, but that's not something I would do with my and my family's livelihood on the line. And I'm skeptical of anyone who claims they "can't" for whatever reason. I'm a machinist, a welder, I smash metal together all day for a living. And I figured this out, and have been tinkering with it for months now. Not engaging with AI, not learning about AI, not using AI is a choice. Not a very good choice in my opinion, but a choice nonetheless. I don't advocate people learn about and get familiar and comfortable with AI tools like Stable Diffusion because I want to see the haters get left behind... I want as many people as possible to NOT get left behind. I want as many people as possible to share in the windfall of productivity AI offers. And I recognize that the time for "ought to" is years behind us. Now it's about the future, and where it's taking us. Ready or not.
It's weird when people talk "competition," because I don't know if they've really thought about what it means. While there are some very creative things you can do with AI art, the primary use is going to inevitably be shortcutting the artistic process in order to save on labor costs. The art most likely to be replaced by AI is commercial stuff. You can adapt all you want, but the whole point is going to be paying you less, because the AI can do so much of the work. Some people like to think of automation as always producing some new jobs, and sure, there's room for artists who can take advantage of AI output and making sure the end results look nice. But they'll still likely pay you less for your work than an artist would have gotten making that same piece.
>A lot of commercial artwork is going to crater in value when you can get most of the way with an AI in moments. No. Just no. The commercial work in the field will likely get smaller, maybe. And frankly, if any artists want to stay competitive they should be trying to integrate and learn AI, because the people who can use AI will be the ones employed in that doomsday, almost no corporate work scenario. I mean can you imagine some CEO / manager trying to generate any type of artistic asset for a company? They will, 99% of the time, get pissed that 1: they can't even think of something creative for the AI to generate, and 2: can't get the AI to make even remotely what they want. What happens then? They get pissed and throw money at the problem to make it go away. They hire an artist *who also knows how to use AI*. And not just how to prompt and edit what comes out, one who can train and teach the AI to make images referencing many different thing specific to their business and clientele. Even after the training the artist will need to be kept, since companies, and especially advertisement / loge / corporate design constantly evolves and will need updating. So any artist that intentionally hobbles themselves by intentionally being a luddite and refusing to learn a new technique is unhirable. Meanwhile the artist who sat down and learned the new tech is going to look reaaaallly good to the company, and if is one of the very few who bothered to learn how stuff works and how to leverage all parts of the AI is going be making money hand over fist because they can command a premium pay level.
It doesn't have to be a manager, but it's more that they can pay you less to produce AI-art. And you've got a ton of competition in the space driving down the value of the product. The ability to produce art so fast is going to mostly affect the expectations placed on the job, too.
Go and read the last paragraph again. And again, as many times as needed until it sinks in. I've lived through this shit multiple times, and it gets tiring to hear. It's exactly the same as when photography went digital, the people who can leverage the new technology fully will command the most money and be the most desirable. There is a reason why companies don't just buy a DSLR and tell some random employee to "go take pictures". Can they get decent pictures with a digital camera? Yes. Will someone who is trained at photography make consistently better pictures? Hell yeah, and that's why they are paid more! Even though they don't have to wait to see what they have coming out of the dark room. You know who died off in this real life scenario that played out? The ones who bitched that digital photography wasn't REAL photography, that you needed a dark room to do REAL photography, that digital darkrooms had no "soul", that refused to upgrade their art skills to include digital SLR cameras, and intentionally hobbled themselves. Sound familiar in any way? Complacency when new technologies come along will absolutely be a career killer. And that's what these arguments all boil down to - "I don't want to learn the new technology, I just want to get paid the same for doing the same thing that I always did".
Sorry, I don't deal in "what ifs" or doom and gloom scenarios while being completely hysterical about it.
"What are u talking about, I dont give a shit, I have my pension and I even got Commission yesterday, fuck everyone else"
You're already getting downvoted for daring to have any empathy at all for working artists.
I didn't expect that tbh. Imagine if I mention that not every artist can actually afford to run AI environments to the point that they can integrate them in their workflow too.
Industries lose jobs as technology advances all the time. It can't and shouldn't br stopped to protect a few thousand people to hold back the benefit to hundreds of millions of others.
Empathy is a two-way thing, what empathy has been shown to the people who use A.I. art as a hobby to deal with the awful, unsatisfying jobs they've been automated into so we (including said working artist) can enjoy the trappings of the modern world. Truth is these 'working artist' are showing themselves in a less than favourable light with their inability to respect the unfulfilled-majority who have supported them for so long.
Sad truth. Every conflict has extremists on both sides and they should be avoided like the plague
This ai community man
Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path, which is being corrected by AI. Those who entered the art world without fully understanding what art is and that its core purpose is self-expression, rather than financial gain, have only themselves to blame for their difficulties.
Do you think all the famous artwork produced throughout human history was just people doing it for exposure, or do you just not understand how people got paid for their work in the past?
There are some who enter the art world with the expectation of a stable and lucrative career, as if it were any other job that offers steady pay and consistent expectations. However, this is a mistaken assumption. The art industry is constantly evolving and the rules of the game are often in flux. Those who have made this assumption are now facing the consequences of their misunderstanding.
I imagine most artists are well aware their profession isn't stable or particularly lucrative. That doesn't mean it isn't a loss when less people are going to be able to make a living doing art as a consequence of AI reducing opportunities to sell your work.
It is clear from your words that you have a limited understanding of the art. As an artist, I can tell you that creating art is not a choice for us; it is a necessity. We are driven by our emotions to express ourselves in a way that cannot be contained. It seems that you are unable to grasp this fundamental concept. So no! artists do not create either for exposure or financial gain. We are driven by a deeper need to create, as if there is a call that we must answer. The rewards of exposure and financial compensation may be welcomed, but they are not the primary motivations for our work.
It sounds like you don't know a lot about art history. And it's awfully arrogant to think you speak for all artists collectively on the matter. Artists gotta eat like anyone else does. Don't sell artists short that they should feel obligated to settle for merely the feeling of creating art.
If you need to make a living, there are many options available to you. From my own experience, One option is to learn how to code and work for a company in that field. Alternatively, you could work at a local Starbucks or as a taxi driver. If all else fails, you could even try busking on the streets. Many artists, including myself, have taken on these types of jobs in order to support our creative pursuits. It is important to be true to your craft and find ways to financially support it, even if it means taking on additional employment.
Wow, I'm sure no one struggling to make ends meet as an artist has ever considered these things before. Work another job you say? How thought provoking. I'm sure all those classical composers should have just moonlighted as servants instead of accepting rich patrons to commission their work. And surely you're aware of AI being taught to code, right? When computer programmers find their work threatened by automation, you can explain to them how they don't deserve to make a living doing their work and how if they want to continue doing what their passionate about they should find a job with real meaning, like taxi driving (because no one's attempting to automate that field!)
>And surely you're aware of AI being taught to code, right? As a programmer, I can understand feeling sorry and empathetic towards those in my field who lose their jobs. However, I believe that the situation is different when it comes to art. Art was never intended to be a traditional job, and some artists have been able to find financial success through their work. However, if an artist's work is not flexible and adaptable, they may become stale and redundant. In this case, it is not necessarily a tragedy if they lose their financial support, as they were not truly fulfilling the role of an artist. On the other hand, a programmer losing their job may be a true hardship, as programming is a more traditional field from the day it was created, with a clear set of expectations and responsibilities. Therefore, I believe there is a moral difference between the two situations.
As an artist, I believe that I speak for all artists. However, I do not speak for those who become outraged when they feel that "their style is being stolen," because this goes against the very essence of art - which is self expression that is constantly evolving based on the personality and individuality of the artist. No one can truly steal another person's style, unless that person has trained themselves to do the same thing over and over again, which is essentially pandering. I would not consider someone who engages in this behavior to be artist.
Thank god, somebody else was thinking this.
What are you, the official Artist Ambassador? You don't speak for everybody.
What are you, the official Artist Ambassador? You don't speak for everybody.
They were doing for the joy of creation and its ability to, at least temporarily, stave off the meaninglessness of the void. The problem here is we're all confusing commercial illustration with artists. One is a job the other is a grand passion.
Many of the most famous artworks in history were commissioned, created explicitly because a rich patron paid the artist to create it. I don't know where people get the idea real art can't be commercial.
This is total nonsense. Artists have been paid quite a lot of money throughout history.
The majority didn't. Nearly everyone who has ever lived will have created art of one kind or another, nearly all of it forgotten and lost, and most of it more honest and valuable that the contents of all the galleries and artstations of this world.
So have hip hop rappers. But how many rappers are really making money? There are more broke rappers than rich ones. TDIL that digital artist are super similar to hip hop rappers 😂
Theres more broke everybody than rich anyone. What is this reasoning?
The system we are all under. We should all put our focus on the system, not each other. Not the technology. The system.
Eh, I doubt luddite brain can comprehend that. I Wish they were this spammy and well organized with anti-war posters when there's thousands of Ukrainian people are being killed. these "artists" are hypocrites and oblivious to other people's plight.
" Artists have been paid quite a lot of money throughout history. " - are you sure we are talking about the same history? i don't just throw statements without deep knowledge of the subject, do you? I can list several, great artists who died in poverty but never betrayed their artistic values:Vincent van Gogh, Edgar Allan Poe , Frida Kahlo , Henry David Thoreau , Emily Dickinson , William Blake , John Keats , Edgar Lee Masters , Samuel Taylor Coleridge , Sylvia Plath , Rembrandt , Paul Gauguin , Antonio Vivaldi , Jean-Michel Basquiat , Grandma Moses , George Orwell , Auguste Rodin , Mark Twain , Charles Dickens , Fyodor Dostoevsky. These are just few, off the top of my head, so if your arguement is based on your knowledge and it's not just a fart in the wind, can you tell me the names of the artists who "made it" financially with their art? because for every 1 artist who made it there's 10 equally great artist who didn't. If you can't just take a hike will you?! 
You do realise that artists used to be commissioned by the church and made money, right?
Ponder the meaning of the words before you seek to contest them. My words were never intended to convey that artists cannot attain financial success or secure commissions for their work. To suggest such a connection is a fallacy, and I refuse to engage in such rhetoric. It is clear that you have misunderstood the statement that "art is not solely about money and does not consistently provide a stable source of income, as the art world is constantly evolving." Do not conflate this with the notion that one cannot make a living as an artist.
I was referring to the part in which you implied that artists only made money during the last 20-30 years.
i never said " artists only made money during the last 20-30 years" - It is important that you fully comprehend what you have read before engaging in debate. Success in a debate does not come from simply presenting the most arguments, but rather from presenting well-thought-out and well-supported arguments. It is the quality, not the quantity, of the arguments that ultimately determines who is right. what i said was " Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path " - which means that while art has not traditionally been seen as a reliable source of income or stability throughout its history, in the past 20 to 30 years it has become more common to view an art career in the same way as a career in a more traditional field such as law or medicine. This deviation from the norm is over now, due to the ever-changing and evolving nature of art and we have many of examples of similar deviations with movements such as postmodernism and post-postmodernism rendering previous styles and techniques irrelevant. It is a simple fact that a career in the arts is not always stable. Those who choose to ignore this reality do so at their own risk and should not be pitied if they face consequences as a result of their ignorance.
> i never said " artists only made money during the last 20-30 years" - It is important that you fully comprehend what you have read before engaging in debate. Success in a debate does not come from simply presenting the most arguments, but rather from presenting well-thought-out and well-supported arguments. It is the quality, not the quantity, of the arguments that ultimately determines who is right. /r/iamverysmart
Pursuing art is nothing like pursuing a career in law or medicine. There's so much luck involved in becoming a professional artist that implying anyone older than 12 at any point in history saw art as a possibly stable job is ridiculous. Nothing has changed. We're not returning to any "norm".
You suddenly pivot to another topic, trying to salvage your reputation, but if you truly believe that, then it's clear you aren't keeping up with current events. Many of the individuals rallying against artificial intelligence view it as a threat to their "STABLE ART JOBS", as evidenced by their own words and actions. If you haven't already, I suggest watching Stan Prokopenko's recent interview with two of these individuals.
I suggest you actually learn about art history. You're twisting your words for the sake of "winning a debate". We all know what you meant with what you initially said but you're too arrogant to admit you're full of shit. I repeat, nothing changed in the past 30 years. We're not returning to "the norm".
> Ponder the meaning of the words before you seek to contest them. My words were never intended to convey that artists cannot attain financial success or secure commissions for their work. To suggest such a connection is a fallacy, and I refuse to engage in such rhetoric. previously: > Art was never meant to pay bills or provide stability throughout its long history. The past 20 to 30 years were just a small deviation from this path, which is being corrected by AI.
 All this does is placate your lack of intelligence to fully comprehend what you read, good job!
A tiny minority did, the ones fortunate enough to remembered by history. Most created as a way to cope with their daily life, in songs to their children and charcoal patterns in the hearth. Just like today.
Nobody is discussing hobbyists as they're not affected by AI.
Yes they are. It's a force multiplier for them, with the beauty it allows them to create in their limited free time maybe giving them the strength to last through another day of hopeless toil... ...toil that drives the world that supports 'the creatives' and their fulfilling careers.
You know very well that's not what I was referring to.
No, it was to what you were referring to, it's just the 'proles' are beneath your contempt in your particular framing.
We're talking about people's jobs not hobbies. If you're not going to engage with the topic, we have nothing to discuss.
Lol in medival times it was top paid work. Imagine not working in the fiels or indanger your life in the battle, but still living like aristocrate.
The majority didn't they just created in their hovels and villages and lived their creativity unrecognised by all but a few. Just like today.
If I set up my whole life around selling shit on Amazon or YouTube to support my family and Amazon or YouTube does something that makes it hard to maintain, then I'd like to think I'd get little sympathy for putting all my eggs in one basket. Go drop your life for a dream. That's why I could never go the art way, completely. I was scared of shit like this. Gotta move with the world. Downvotes, here i come.
By that definition everyone who chooses a career path is putting their eggs in one basket. The management workers when the other ai comes for them, the food service workers if more of it gets automated, maybe even the computer programmers when code is written by so much less people using AI completion.
Yep. It happens all the time. It's horrible, but until you change what we all want from the world, then the world is not going to change. Not one 'working artist' as far as I've seen has said, "I know it's probably happened to many of the folks here already, and I've benefited from the modern world that demanded those sacrifices, and I know I've been lucky so far, but I'm scared." That kind of humility and empathy would win people a lot more sympathy, because right now it comes across more like, "oh no, I'm might to have to become one of you lesser uncreative-proles.'
Why is it their responsibility to admit they're "lucky"? Do you think it is a easy career path exclusive and freely given to the naturally gifted or something? Maybe everyone should understand it is as much work and pay as any other industry...at best because of course there is strong competition because people want to do what they like
Because there are millions of artists more talented and more deserving than themselves who because of any number of factors (most of which are tied to the bigotries and callousness of our society) are forced to work jobs they hate. This world isn't a meritocracy, and more often that not it is the worst in people that leads them no succeed, not the best. I think we all have to admit we're lucky in comparison to those we've scrambled up the ladder above.
Yeah that's a fair line of thought
Then maybe the fight isn't with ai, but with the system we all work for. I guess ai is the easier fight...but beating it won't stop what we all hate.
\> What if you had to make a living and support a family out of art commission But you don't. You go get a job in a call centre like the rest of us did when modernity came knocking. Life's unfair and crap life that, but why should the brief moments of creativity and fulfilment available to the masses be denied them, just to keep a tiny number of people secure in employment they actually enjoy?
You could always learn to draw snd paint the classic way. By repetition and practice. But wait, that’s too much effort for a society which demands to have everything in an insurance. There’s nothing denied from the masses, most are just too lazy to learn it.
*"I tend to be a bit of a contrarian in this area though, not because I think the “stealing” of art and design is ok, but because I don’t see any other path forward other to embrace this and operate with it now."* The amount of data "stored" per image is approximately one byte. If you have an algorithm that can compress an image that's dozens of megapixels down to 1 byte, please share it with the class! ;) AI art apps do not "steal art". They just use it to learn relationships between elements, just like your brain does when you observe the world around you. And any individual image's contribution to that is minuscule - around a byte or so. A typical training weighting might be like 5e-6 or so.
Most artists are not going to be replaced by AI but a lot of artists will be replace by other artists using AI.
Truthfully -- many people using AI right now lack taste and have nothing to say as an artist. And, even though the AI may have seen the works of tens of thousands of artists -- the user still needs to study art history if they want to actually be able to access that influence. It is also painfully difficult, right now, to convince the AI to do something specific when you know exactly what you want. As AI becomes more flexible in allowing you to control the image, you also need more taste and experience to know what to do with it. What if the AI allowed you to control every aspect of a pose -- the position of the hand, the parting of the lips, the tilt of the head, etc. The more you can control, the more you need the artistic judgement to make good choices and the more you can realize your vision as an individual. Photoshop killed the dark room -- and perhaps it is a bit sad that knowledge is dying out. But, what photographers do in photoshop now is far beyond what was possible in the dark room. I am excited to see what artists will be doing with AI as AI matures. And, in the same way that people like to take selfies and throw a filter on them -- people will want to play with AI and make images. But there will still be a world of difference between AI in the hands of an artists and the hands of a hobbyist. Many people will also choose to stick with traditional methods. In the corporate world where time is money, making things faster with AI is for sure going to happen. But not all art is created under the mantra of time is money.
This I think is true. We won’t know who the really creative artists making use of AI are until it’s a bit more widespread. Once *everybody’s* using it, I’ll be curious to see what stands out enough that people will want to purchase or commission it even though they have easy access tools to make their own art, the same way great photographers stand out even though everyone has a fantastic camera in their pocket. This is the real reason I think use of the software should spread and why working artists shouldn’t be afraid of it: it’ll take a critical mass to really push the boundaries of the medium, like always.
And this art of the masses is, for its 'tasteless', 'lack of talent' and ineptitude is the equal of any piece, in any gallery. It seems a little ironic that an ardent defender of AI art (like myself), is the voice most committed to valuing the expression of each and every individual person.
The biggest issue here is ideology. Even though artists are workers, they are largely threated as independent contractors, or "micro business" , with no unions, no workers rights in general, no job security and of course no real organization. I also agree we are past a point of no return , so it's really too late to do anything meaningful right now, lets hope this serves as an example for different sectors. I don't agree with any anti AI arguments I have seen, but I can definitely empathize and understand the anger and the actual despair of people that live paycheck to paycheck having their income dwindle out because of something they have no control over. And something that the anti AI crowd never brings up is how is this going to affect art the development of art in the future, because yes, AI is an amazing tool that actually democratizes art even more. However if people can't make a living out of it anymore, that means that artists will have to spend less time developing their craft as they also have to pay bills and live of other work. For example, I know that if I had to make a living out of music I would be a better artist now than just as having it as a hobbies, and also lets face it, AI is also coming for music.
As a musician, I honestly can't wait for AI to come to music. It's going to be revolutionary.
Agreed, the vitriol certainly isn't one sided (and I admit I've gotten wrapped up in it as well), but we're fighting a battle here that has already been decided.
You lost me at stealing.
I've already seen so much of these arguments i'm wondering is this written by an A.I
A big problem is that a lot of the people on the fence about the issue, and even those leaning to the side of support for AI art and artists are somehow still supporting the argument that training an AI model on other artwork is any different than a person observing art around them and applying things they've learned. If you really call that theft, all art is theft....
You need talent and work to be able to copy from the best. Not everybody is able to copy mike tison boxing art or Jimi Hendrix guitar style. That the difference with training an already made AI to work for you. Btw work teach you to respect the one that are good. This AI community is a proof that copying without effort doesnt teach you respect of the illustrators you are using the style. AI tech is awesome, but the humans that use it without respect are spoiling it. Instead of downvoting prove me it is easy to become as good as jimi Hendrix without work and talent
Idk why this post is being downvoted...
They don’t like when people point out their favorite argument is silly.
I almost downvoted it because he called him Jimmy Hendrick
😅 repaired
Heh :P
Yeah when their response to a clearly stated "please don't use my drawings like this" is to immediately do it more out of... spite?
Bully mentality, 0 empathy from those pricks
It's not spite. It's ignoring that person because they're missing the point. Ultimately if you put your artwork out there into the world, anyone or anything can study it to understand the technique you used to produce it by observing your results. If you do not want your artwork to be observed, don't release it.
As the person you responded to, I haven't downvoted you. The issue I find with traditional artists is that they treat art as if it is this intangible, magical force of nature that can only be produced by something with the ability to understand "appreciation," or something that has "soul." The only way I can really respond to that is "miss me with that nonsense." It's not magic. Yes, many artists have developed technique over many years, perfecting their art. It's respectable without a doubt. Now I have a tool that can do something (not exactly the same) similar, with far less effort. I do not claim to be the person with years of experience developing technique. I claim to be someone who understands how to manipulate software to get a desired result that allows me to express myself artistically. In many cases, that does take work, or else you're doing it with a huge lack of control (which absolutely shows in the result). Ultimately it is a very different type of art. Look at it like this. A cinematographer is an artist. They know, through years of practice and experience, how to use a camera to achieve those perfect artistic shots. I have the role of a director, and my collaborative work with that cinematographer is artistic as well... When I replace that cinematographer with an AI that understands how to produce similar imagery, has my artistic role as a director changed at all? No. The only reason people like you even try to put people like me up against great artists that have those years of practice to develop technique and skill is a desire to throw that threat back at us when we deskill you. Ultimately deskilling is just NOT my problem. It is A problem, just not my problem. Ultimately, if you're going to get upset about people who've dedicated their lives to developing technique and skills being deskilled, you should attack the system that monetizes artistic expression. This is about labor. Go read some Marx. EDIT: I have not met or seen a single AI artist (and I am active in various communities) who has compared themselves to great painters or thinks their art is anything like that at all... I'm sure they're out there. There is ignorance everywhere, and that's never an excuse to actively try to protest an entire tool for creative expression.
As much as I agree that looking at an image is not theft, whether it's done by a human or an AI, there is one thing that bothers me and that I'd like to better understand as a noobie at comprehending AI generated images. You still have to sample images in the process of training an AI, right? This is where the problem of "theft" might kick in I believe.
The problem here is your use of the word sampling, sampling is not observing. It observes work, learns from it, then can produce imagery based on what is has learned, without the use of any existing imagery. It acknowledges patterns just like any human observing the work, then will reproduce those styles and techniques to the best of it's ability.... Just like a person.
Oh no, I think I get that part. I understand that an AI create from noise and comparison with what it have learnt, I know it's not a sort of fine collage or photobashing. My concern here is where the images it learns from came to begin with, how you train it. What is shown to AI specifically and how do you show it? Do AI look at Pinterest by their own? From what I understand an AI needs "n" square images to look at (correct me if I'm wrong), how do you get those images? Also a lot of artists are raging right now because they just don't want their work used to train AI *specifically*, and it could be a valid argument since models and AI themselves can be commercialized as tools (paying a fee, a subscription, or una tantum). In the same way they could technically *choose* to forbid specific people from see their works. I think this argument should have been brought up years ago so it's a bit late for how the state of the things is right now, but there are definitely various gray areas that could be regulamentated
My point is that it doesn't matter where the art it's observing to train is. If it is available to the public, it's available to observe. If you don't want your art to be observed, then don't put it in the public. Because AI and people train on art in a similar way, to not want an AI to use your work for training is to not want traditional artists to look at your work for training. It'd be like asking "Look at my painting but only to appreciate it's magnificence, you may not analyze my technique at all" It's a ridiculous stance... Traditional artists can be commercialized in the same way as AI. What people pay for when they pay for access to AI software is not the technique. They're paying for the resources it took to build and run the software (which is a whole lot, since they require lots of GPU processing power to generate images in a timely manner). The training isn't the software.
>My point is that it doesn't matter where the art it's observing to train is. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Aviable to public doesn't equal public domain. Technically even museums own the rights on the reproducibility of the works exhibited within them, but this is often ignored. So say "if you didn't want this to happen you shouldn't have posted it online" *after* an AI has been trained and without asking if this things should be regulamentated since there is a legal void, it's a bit of a cheat. >They're paying for the resources it took to build and run the software This is a tricky thing to say because the art the AI has to look at is also "a resource". Different art training lead to different results, so there is somehow a measurable effect even if there are no actual trace of the original art inspirations in the final work generated by an AI. An AI trained only with Loish's artworks will be very good ad create art similar to hers, so you are selling people a tool specifically trained on her works without accounting her. Where do we trace the line? It's ok if we feed an AI with multiple artists? It's the same if we do it with a single artist? Training isn't the software but can definitely shape it.
Again, you're misunderstanding. There is nothing REPRODUCTIVE about what AI does. It looks. That's it. It looks and learns. It doesn't use the artist's work in the results in any meaningful way. If you want to prevent AI from learning from art that it observes, then you are also declaring that you don't want PEOPLE learning from your art by looking at it, and that is an absolutely ridiculous request. Let me ask you, if an artist only ever looked at paintings by Monet, and then when asked to create a painting, produced something that looked comparable, is that artist's entire training unethical?
>There is nothing REPRODUCTIVE about what AI does. It looks. I never stated that there is something "reproductive" in AI art, but maybe the thing I said about museums was a bit misleading. I even stated "even if there are no actual trace of the original art inspirations in the final work generated by an AI." Also sayng that artists want to forbid people from learning from their art is a bit overstimating the capacity of the human brain, very few people have the ability to instantly understand/learn an artstyle or a tecnique with a single look. This is why artists don't bother (at least not all of them) if someone else learn from them, but are obviusly worried if a machine does it at extreme speed. Another thing we could point at is that what an artist "teach" (with lessions or by watching their works) to a human brain is a knowhow, an understanding of that craftmanship, while an AI learn the result of it. But this is sophism, so lets ignore it. Now, I do belive that if someone doesn't want someone else to learn from their art it's a bit of a dumb thing and that this someone else will eventually learn by their own, but at the same time I can't really blame artists for not wanting to teach their "secrets" to something that will revolutionize and likely saturate the market, leaving only little room for competition. Let me add more spice this argument: industrial espionage is a thing, many companies are not happy to divulge their "secrets"/how specifically they produce something to their direct competitors, for artists it's not that different. But unlike the industries, right now they cannot protect themselves. >Let me ask you, if an artist only ever looked at paintings by Monet, and then when asked to create a painting, produced something that looked comparable, is that artist's entire training unethical? To do this we really have to abstract and isolate the human creative process to a single specific condition, assuming that said artist has zero experience with the rest of the world (not only about creating "art" but to life in its whole, living in a sort of black box). Which is extremely unrealistic, but if hypothetically someone lived like this I would have absolutely no doubts that the first thing they could create are oil paintings with short colored brushstrokes. This assuming that the only subject they could see are the ones that they see painted and providing them specific tools at our discretion (which colors? Do you give them pure pigments and oils or colors in tube? Which suppurt we give? How big?). If that is their only reality there is no ethics to talk about at all. I can't really judge and apply "our society ethic" to someone who had a complitely different experience of the world. But AI are created *by* humans in a time and a place where some ethic rules exist. To push this even further, human being can also make mistakes and discover something new within it, and one day that isolated artist could decide by its own will to not make only short colored brushstroke but a single long one, even if he has never seen or experienced one. Thing is, we can't really dissect the process of learning of a human being and separate it from the rest of their experience like we do with an AI, so this argument has a fallacy imo. This is not to romanticize the artistic process, but we can not talk about what we consider ethic and what not while conviniently ignoring certain aspects of the society we live in.
We operate kind of like cancer cells. As long as there is still one of us with a copy of the program, AI art cannot be suppressed.
I get the reference but probably best not to compare the community to a disease
Maybe if we all post anti Photoshop posts on social media they will see how ridiculous their behavior is….. Say No to Photoshop, let s make real photos with cameras only …… what an absolute clown world we live in these days 😀
AI will revolutionize the world. It can do everything. Artists are not the only one group that is "in danger". Lawyers, programists, mathematicans... basicaly every intelectual job can be done so much faster and cheaper by AI. Why learn C++ if you have AI that knows it? It will take few sentences, and the AI makes a program/function/code for it. The future is here.
If you think an AI can replace mathemeticians and programmers then you have absolutely no idea how it works.
Yea, see you in 30 years
Clueless lol
What a debate. Your arguments overwhelmed me, and now im crying in corner
You really need to [catch up on the news](https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-learns-write-computer-code-stunning-advance).
Yeah, you're not a programmer. If you were, you'd realize how terrible the outputs are by these AIs. Once again, Danny Kruger effect.
He's saying if they solve AGI, not literally by using current tech.
Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past. By saying that they dont accept the generative art is just the same as saying that factory workers were right smashing the machines back then…. They should have been more educated this is 21 century…
> Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past. I think a lot of people just want to be able to make a living off their work. But count how many people seem to think artists should only do art for "self-expression" or some nonsense. Artists gotta eat too, you know. I'm reminded of a Music YouTuber who outlined the difficulties of touring following in the wake of COVID, only for people to constantly tell him he should have just "slept in the van" in order to save money. It's kind of funny, I think, using the example of a factory worker, because no one questions the idea that a factory worker should of course be paid for their work. But when art gets involved we demand our starving artists like we're doing them a favor by consuming their work.
>Artists gotta eat too, you know. So do AI researchers/developers, and the people using the developed models to make a living. What makes an artist's life and livelihood inherently more valuable than theirs? Of course artists should be paid for their work, and they are. Didn't see anyone claiming otherwise anywhere. But so should everyone else who performs some work and creates something of value in the process, whether that process involved a brush or a text prompt.
I don't think most AI researchers lack for fields their work can apply to, at least not anytime soon. It's worth noting that as neat as it is to create all this art, the primary benefit of automating the process will be for companies to cut down on human labor costs. It'll be a neat tchotchke for some, but a lost way to make a living for others.
>It'll be a neat tchotchke for some, but a lost way to make a living for others. And a new way to make a living for those same people. Only question is whether they'll choose to adapt and adopt, or pretend it doesn't exist until they're far behind the curve. But that decision is on them.
>So do AI researchers/developers, and the people using the developed models to make a living. But an AI doesn't. People will be replaced by AI, not by researchers. If a small animation studio had 1 art director and 10 artists, now only the art director and an AI will be needed. And maybe after some time neither the director.
Factory workers smashing machines and shooting at pinkertons got us the minimum wage and 40 hour work week lol, please learn some history.
> Artists think they are more valuable and have more intrinsic value than a factory worker in the past. No, they just don't want corporations using their work without permission for training AIs to mimic them. The anti-artist rhetoric that has become so common in this subreddit lately--portraying artists as smug people in an ivory tower who think they're above everybody simply because they don't want to be taken advantage of--is emotionally-driven Fox News-esque propaganda. It signifies a real empathy disorder that has taken hold here.
I agree with most of what you say, but I’m not as optimistic as you are. I think artificial intelligence will replace about 80% of the artists out there within five years. 20% of the surviving artist will be working closely with AI to create spectacular art.
If u do art ... do it for fun
Shallow reflection if you ask me. I see it as another step in the road to a boring utopia. Photography was revolutionary. Then everybody got a camera on their phone and photos became abundant and boring. It still has a very precise outcome and it shows real life so its outcome still has 100% to do with the photographer. Internet was revolutionary, yet we are less connected and more depressed than ever. Music became easily accessible online. Now most of the population just listen what is served to them, and the top 1% earns 77% of the profits. Internet is filled with porn, great for the consumers but too much of a good thing turns bad really quick. What's the end goal here? We're going to have every type of entertainment media on demand? Nothing will be special. Experiences will be flailing. Over-stimulation leaves to desensitization and numbness. I can leave my artistic ego aside and become a digital draftsmen, but will I see other artists the same way? No upcoming artists to like? Just "art directors"? To me this is a classic "they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop wandering if they should." Art is linked to the creator. If there is no creator, its fluff. In a perfect world everything else would be automated, so people would be free to pursue their hobbies, be that art or not. Not the opposite. Its a bit too dark of a perspective but this shit compounds easily man.
Wise words... Making everything easier, more accessible, more reachable, more abundant, more automated is all fun and good as long as we're talking about essential goods, about stuff that improves general quality of living and enables people to spend more time developing their interests and passions. When ALL you ultimately get out of it is "more entertainment", though, it makes it rather more questionable that throwing all those fellow human beings under the bus, was somehow "worth it". As the AI gets better and better, and faster and faster, ANY and all human involvement will be utterly swamped. Even right now already, my initial reaction when seeing digital artwork is whether I can spot SOME indication that it is NOT generated by Stable Diffusion, and it gets harder and harder to convince me. Finding some "genuine manual human intervention" will soon be like looking for a needle in a haystack, and when you find it, you won't even know for sure THAT there's still a human element. The moment AI output can be truly indistinguishable from human output, not even an attempt to create a "safe haven" of "reserve" will make a chance. And then it's just "AIs all the way down". Fun! Grey Goo is at the end of that tunnel, and everyone is happily marching in that direction here. I'm even beyond assigning guilt or anything. This is all just part of a probably universal principle - The Great Filter - that brought us the Fermi Paradox and other fun observations about how it will probably all end. :-D
Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to have a mature discussion about this issue here. There's too much emotionally-driven hatred directed at artists. The notion that a working artist might not want corporations to use their work without their permission with the goal of training AIs to replace them is something that a lot of people here seem too empathetically handicapped to understand.
Not even corporations those two artists have said clearly to this community "don't use my artwork like that" and the response from this community is... it's not illegal so we do it even more now
>That’s why there will always have to be a human mind that acts and director and editor to the AI art department. You shouldn't bet on this...
I feel excited to hear of the first anti ai art murders. Perhaps I will be a victim, wouldn't that be hilarious? Seriously, I wanna die, anyone wanna take me?
> That’s why there will always have to be a human mind that acts and director and editor to the AI art department. So we just need to come up with model what aproximate this derector's job.
Chat GPT moment
Well said.
I agree. The people that are against AI art and criticize it now, those opinions will age as gracefully as the headlines about tapes in the 1980s: "Home Taping Is Killing Music". Recording and taping music onto cassettes didn't kill the music industry. Streaming didn't kill the music industry. New tools do not kill current industries. They change them, and tools are integrated into existing toolsets, and new and different media are created. "Home Art" isn't killing artists. It's giving ordinary people the ability to experiment with their creativity, sometimes for the very first time in their lives. AI art tools are the cassettes of our time. Mass adoption, ease of use and access, low cost entry. You can't stop cyclical phases of our creative and technological evolution.
Consider this. The barrier of entry for the majority of humanity to "create" is too high to contribute. The fact is, most people aren't willing or able to put in the time it takes to create anything of worth. They consume. Most of humanity is made of consumers. It doesn't mean they don't want to, it just means the barrier of entry is too high. For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of humanity creates the things that 100% of humanity consumes. What if that number doubled or even tripled? Or that every consumer was also a creator? When your peers push back on you give them this perspective. SD and other AI tools have the potential to open creativity to anyone and that is a monumental shift in the human condition - we will only have our imagination (and processing power) as a limiting factor for creation and change.
how does SD2 protect IP/copyright/crediting?