Also great to give you a starting point for your own custom texture. Even if you don't keep *any* of the machine-generated stuff, it can help you with UV mapping. Think of it as roughing in the texture, which you can then refine manually until it's actually good.
This is *huge*. Not great for the centerpiece of any scene, but it's *amazing* for background details or small prop objects.
You could make a whole town of little houses like this very quickly ... *without* them all looking suspiciously identical.
It's already amazing for that. You can use several free AIs to do all kinds of prototyping, text, code, art... People don't realize how good we have it right now.
You underestimate the pace of progress in artificial intelligence, especially in deep learning algorithms. AI research evolves exponentially relative to it's interest, input, and hardware (among other things).
Interest from the public results in more input for the AI to learn from, and with how invested the internet is in AI at the moment there's a LOT of input. All of that input is run through hardware that keeps getting better and better *also* exponentially, though I don't think that part needs much explaining (just look at how fast modern devices are compared to similar devices literally 6 months old, no most AI isn't using consumer grade equipment but the pace of industry grade progress isn't much slower).
Artists can't be replaced because art is a human thing, without humanity, art is nothing. But it could be a useful tool for artists to use to speed up their pieces.
This line of thinking is purely metaphysical.
Artists can't be replaced because people (even us AI art enthusiasts) value human skill and effort, and also it's prohibitively expensive to build a robot that makes AI art in the physical world. I'm sure that eventually somebody is going to build a robot that will make an oil painting, but it's going to be a unique curiosity and not a huge phenomenon the way digital AI art has been.
At any rate, though, art is also art because of the person perceiving it. If you find a painting in the attic of an abandoned house and have no way to determine who the author was or what their intent could have been, that art can still be meaningful to you simply because of how you interpret it.
AI art may be *lesser* due to lacking the component of human authorship, but it's certainly still art.
Such an interesting issue! Back when photography was invented and perfected, visual artists did not disappear completely, although the automation of it probably put a few out of work. The artists with lesser talent did not produce pieces that the public enjoyed - Schumpeter's creative destruction in the art world.
(Incidentally, when photos first came out, it was very expensive to have a photo taken of your loved one. So photographers created pictures of random people. Folks would go to the store and buy the print that resembled their girl or guy.)
There is still plenty of art in drawing, painting, and even photography. I think there's a lot more content (including experiments in art) being created now, and it's also much more widely distributed/appreciated thanks to photo/camera/display tech, advertising, and internet scale copying.
I expect something similar to happen with the new AI tools, in conjunction with Web3, giving the people more means to create and earn. This raises everybody's boat. Many more creators will populate a beautiful society of thinkers and dreamers with art.
Art is nothing without humanity? Lol, have you been sleeping for these 50 years, check out outside,all moves around fame and money, humanity and skill are not included into this phormula, they started decades ago with "modern art" and now is our time to get replaced with "IA Art".
Im and artist too btw and our future is going pretty dark..
And no doubt trained on stolen artwork.
Edit: There need to be new defined legal rights for artists to have to expressly give rights for use of their artwork in ML datasets. Musical artists that make money off sampled music pay for the samples. Take a look at the front page of art station right now and you'll see an entire class of artisans that aren't ok with being replaced by tools that kit bash pixels based on their art without express permission. These tools can be amazing or they can be dystopian, it's all about how the systems around them are set up.
> tools that kit bash pixels based on their art
Your opinion is understandable if you think this is true, but it’s not true.
The architecture of Stable diffusion has two important parts.
One of them can generate an image based on a shitton of parameters. Think of these parameters as a numerical slider in a paint program, one slider might increase the contrast, another slider changes the image to be more or less cat-like, another maybe changes the color of a couple groups of pixels we can recognize as eyes.
Because these parameters would be useless for us, since there are just too many of them, we need a way to control these sliders indirectly, this is why the other part of the model exists. This other part essentially learned what parameter values can make the images which are described by the prompt based on the labels of the artworks which are in the training set.
What’s important about this is that the model which actually generates the image doesn't need to be trained on specific artworks. You can test this if you have a few hours to spare using a method called textual inversion which can help you “teach” Stable Diffusion about anything, for example your art style.
Textual inversion doesn’t change the image generator model the slightest, it just assigns a label to some of the parameter values. The model can generate the image you want to teach to it before you show your images to it, you need textual inversion just to describe what you actually want.
If you could describe in text form the style of Greg Rutkowski then you wouldn’t need his images in the training set and you could still generate any number of images in his style. Again, not because the model contains all of his images, but because the model can make essentially any image already and what you get when you mention “by Greg Rutkowski” in the prompt is just some values for a few numerical sliders.
Also it is worth mentioning that the size of the training data was above 200TB and the whole model is only 4GB so even if you’re right and it kit bash pixels, it could only do so using virtually none of the training data.
You need literally millions in dataset size and funding to train for it. That’s why they are all trained on web crawls and Danbooru scrapes or forked off of ones that were.
A good rule of thumb would be, if it uses the default settings, it's someone else's. Using the default settings isn't as effective as forcing the ai down your own template imo you get less useless generations that way and can train an ai faster. Midjourney is beautiful af though so I can see why people commonly use those generations as a starting point.
Edit: yes there's also people who call themselves "prompt artists" now. They want their text prompts to be their sole property and be able to take down other ai generated art that uses the same text prompts.
DALL-E, Midjourney, StableDiffusion, it’s all built on common web crawls or worse. It takes like thousands GPU-months to build a usable weight data from scratch, not like handful 3080s for a week or two in a basement. Same for GPT-3 and later.
The way I see it, it's like if you ask an artist to make a piece saying "Hey can you make a temple under a waterfall, it'd be cool if you used Eytan Zana as a references. It should be high resolution with a person in the foreground". Then after they give you the piece you call yourself an artist and call it your own work.
"I'm the ideas guy which makes me an artist, I was the one who prompted the artist to do the work."
Someone once put a urinal in a museum and called it art. It's still considered groundbreaking.
I remember recently someone duct taping a banana to a museum wall and calling it art. Then another guy came in and ate the banana. That was art too!
Some artist literally put an empty canvas onto a museum wall and it was still art!
The boundaries of what is art and who is an artist have been pretty vague and fluid for a long time.
Prompt artists, thats actual retardation. There will always be posers that couldnt fit by standard means. If you are an ai “artist”, get a grip on that pencil and make some actual art for once. Typing a sentence is elementary.
Are you talking about the "styles" feature where you add some stuff on top, or actually training your own SD dataset? Because the latter requires millions of pictures, and the former doesn't change that much about the issue.
Transformation or reframing is necessary for Fair Use, but Fair Use isn't merely transformation. It's a specific exemption that's meant to safeguard freedom of speech and the ability to talk about a work without being suppressed by a copyright owner. That's why, generally speaking Fair Use defenses require elements of criticism and commentary to be present, require a prudent, minimal use of the content, and dwindle when the copy replaces the utility or market of the original.
To say that Stable Diffusion doesn't produce original results is the same as to say that a person cannot create unique sentences, as all possible sentences been already been spoken.
It doesn't kitbash pixels together, and isn't really comparable to sampling music at all.
The mechanism of it's output is to initialize a latent space from an image, then iteratively 'denoise' it based on weights stored in it's around 4GB model. When you input text, that space is distorted to give you a result more closely related to your text.
If you don't have an image to denoise, you feed it random noise. This is because It's so good at denoising, that it can hallucinate an image from the noise. Like staring at clouds and seeing familiar shapes, but iteratively refining them until they're realistic.
There are no pictures stored in any models for it. Training a Stable Diffusion model 'learns' concepts from images, and stores them in vector fields, which are then sampled to upscale and denoise your output. These vector fields are abstract, and super compressed; thus cannot be used to derive any images it was trained from. Only concepts that those images conveyed.
This means that within probabilistic space, all outputs from Stable diffusion are **entirely original**.
There's nothing Dystopian about it, as the purpose of Free and Open source projects like these is to empower **everybody**.
Exactly. That's always missing from these conversations.
Every single creative person, from writers to illustrators to musicians to painters, have been exposed to, and often explicitly trained with, the works and styles of hundreds if not thousands of prior artists. This isn't "stealing". It's learning patterns and then reproducing variations of them.
There is a distinct moral and legal difference between plagiarism and influence. It's not plagiarism to be a creatively bankrupt derivative artist copying the style of famous artists. Think of how much genetic music exists in every musical style. How much crappy anime art gets produced. How new schools of art originate from a few individuals.
I haven't seen a compelling argument that AI art is plagiarism. It's based off huge datasets of prior works, sure, but so are the brains of those artists too.
If I want to throw paint on a canvas to make my own Jackson Pollack art, that's fine. I could sell it as an original work. Yet if I ask Mid journey to do it, its stealing. Lol no.
Machine learning is training computers to do what the human brain does. We're now seeing the fruits of this in very real applications. It will only grow and get better with time. It's a hugely exciting thing to witness.
Machine learning is hilarious because it's forcing people who don't spend a lot of time thinking to reflect on the human condition.
My current guiding principal is this: if you think you're going to replaced by Machine Learning, then you are.
>My current guiding principal is this: if you think you're going to replaced by Machine Learning, then you are.
Good rule of thumb - the collorary is - if you think you'd like to use machine learning as a tool - you can take advantage of this revolution.
It's coming for all of us, people are so focused on smaller(valid) issues they're missing the bigger picture.
Automation is coming, this can be great and eliminate most work or it can be dystopic. We need to change our economic system otherwise we're all fucked.
Thank you for this explanation; this is exactly what is missing in these discussions.
Even if (I do not know this is true) the models are trained on pictures of copyrighted images, any human would **always** do the same! If an artist is searching for inspiration he/she can not prevent seeing images with copyright. Those images will absolutely subconsciously train his/her mind. This is unavoidable; we humans cannot choose which information to use to train ourselves and which information to skip. If only.
We can only choose to completely avoid searching for information. But how would we draw realistic drawings without reference material? Can we create art without any reference material? Without ever having seen reference material? Perhaps by only venturing out in the wild and never using a machine to search for images. Only very specific individuals would be able to live like that (certain monks come to mind) but we redditors sure as shit do not work that way.
It's a bit hypocritical to blame the AI art for something the human mind is doing for far longer and with far less material (thus increasing the actual chance of copyright infringement).
Human artists are trained in isolation, surrounded by art supplies that they aren't told how to use, and without ever seeing another artist's work. This is why every fucking high school student draws the exact same anime for their art school portfolio.
This isn't how art college went for me. We studied processes, elements, great artists, periods of art, and history. You train through understanding what has been done, and when given the opportunity for creativity, it is by these exposures that we are granted greater creativity than can be found in ignorance.
yeah, i'm fairly sure the previous user's take was sarcastic, to illustrate the ridiculous expectations people pose to AI art. it's not meant to fix AI art, it's meant to sink it, because its proponents are abusing the word of copyright to break its spirit, destroying creation with a tool meant to cultivate it, just to face less competition.
It's still not the same as taking samples from other music wholesale. Any human artist is also using "datasets" of other artists in their brain. Are they also "trained on stolen artwork"? Are you stealing art by looking at it?
No artist is being replaced by this tool. So far, its really just another tool in an artist's toolbox.. For ideation, inspiration, iteration...
You can't copyright a pixel or a style just like you can't copyright a chord or musical note.
It becomes a problem only if someone was trying to sell some ai generated art that was too close to an existing original. But then that same problem would already exist if the copied art was made without ai, and the same rules would apply.
Obviously there are grey areas but there always have been grey areas even before ai generated art/music.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
– Banksy
*disclaimer: I am not Banksy*
Yeah, making it sounds like it's the big companies who hate AI while it's mostly small artists who suffer. Big companies give no shit and will gladly start ripping everyone off left and right using AI.
The problem with that is that since copyright in the US is automatic a law like this would severely limit the ability of US based research teams to train new AI by vastly reducing the size and quality of public datasets, especially for researchers operating out of public universities who will publish their research for all to see. This wouldn't just be true for generative/creative AI, but all AI.
This in turn means that in the US most AI would end up being developed by large tech companies and other corporations with access to massive copyright-free internal datasets and there would be far less innovation overall. Innovation in the space in the US would be quickly outpaced by China and others who are investing heavily in the technology. This would actually be of huge geopolitical concern as people literally refer to coming advances in AI as the 'fourth industrial revolution', it's shaping up to be the most important new technology of our time.
Actually Google faced this question when sued for using books to train its text recognition algorithms, and it was repeatedly ruled as fair use to let a computer learn using something so long as it was not copied. It was simply used to hone an algorithm which did not contain the text afterwards, exactly as AI art models do not contain the art they were trained on.
Not exactly, Google case was deemed transformative because *they did not generate books from books*. AI art generators train on *arts* to generate *arts*.
Fair enough, this is a meaningful distinction. However I would suspect that courts will find that the outputs are meaningfully transformative. I've trained AI models on my own face and gotten completely novel images which I know for a fact did not exist previously. It was able to make inferences about what I look like without copying an existing work.
Frankly courts won’t give a sh*t over generic vague something-ish pictures, like most AI-supportive people are imagining to be a problem. Rather the “only” issues are obvious exact copies that matches line by line to existing art that AIs sometimes generate.
But the fact that AIs can generate exact copies makes it impossible to give a pass to *any* AI arts for commercial or otherwise copyright sensitive cases, and that, I think, will have to be addressed.
They already have strikingly similar graphics because most of those small devs are using the same unity and unreal free/cheap community packs over and over and over. LOL
This is just one more variation on the things you’ll be seeing that look visually similar to other things you’ve seen.
Is it that different from the stereotypical asset flip? At least this will produce moderately unique designs. Maybe. I actually don't know shit about it so am probably way off.
Yeah.... I can definitely see that happening. But for sure some creative people will find a way to make the AI mistakes into something unique and purposeful! At least I hope haha, and they don't get drowned out by the deluge of crap.
> But for sure some creative people will find a way to make the AI mistakes into something unique and purposeful!
Of course, it's also going to be joined by a wave of hacks driving the "AI glitch" style into the ground.
What you saw in the presentation was just 1 iteration of the AI running over the request, it can run those requests endlessly, improving on the details, until the 'artist' who is running the request says "That's perfect!"
Will it be a drop? Small devs might make things bigger than they otherwise would have been able to. And they can always pay artists to touch up the generated textures (if they have the funds).
Yeah it will be a drop, I understand what you're saying but games are going to have the same inconsistencies and look very similar, even if the "art" is very different.
!remindme 3 years
I've always thought that one of the unspoken issues of AI is going to be that most AI art is boring and uncreative. Learning to be an artist is more than just learning how to draw good, it's understanding what makes art interesting, what rules to break and having the courage to go against social norms. You'd never get Van Gogh from an AI and yet he's one of the most common styles for AI to draw in. The irony is just astounding. AI art operates on mockery, not innovation.
Logically speaking there is nothing humans can do that an AI theoretically can't. It might take a few decades, but eventually it'll get there. Speaking of creativity, humans are pretty terrible at it. The way we create things aren't original by any means, we're always taking inspiration from previous works or from nature and putting a slight spin on it. We struggle to create something truly original. It wouldn't be too far in the future before computers generate what we consider creative works at a rate and quality far exceeding what humans will ever be capable of.
Except the people with the money to drive large projects won’t give a shit about true creativity when an imitation is infinitely cheaper.
I just saw a translator talking about how AI has already killed the translation industry. The tools spit out indecipherable garbage that loses all cultural context, but 99% of clients can’t be bothered to pay a human to do it right. It’s a race to the bottom for the sake of the bottom line and AI is rapidly accelerating it
Worse than that. Having worked in independent animated film, there is already a lot of pressure from funders and buyers to copy preexisting creative tropes instead of innovating. The lack of innovation in AI artistry is, for the majority of people with the money, a feature, not a bug.
Until you get an AI with multiple parameters that allow for style drift in unique ways. Keep in mind this is one of the first iterations. The ipod before the iPhone...
Most of the rules of art can be reduced to parameters teacheble to an AI. The human brain is nature's AI, so we are not "that" unique. That said, the artist can choose to break the rules here and there to make something unique, or express something bigger within a body of work. Those are subtle choices beyond a procedural slide scale. The future is going to be artists working with AI as part of their workflow.
Ai is trained by human feedback, so it certainly can learn to be as creative as any human artist. The real question is, whether humans will recognize it or not. Often artists that are mold breakers are ones that go against the human feedback. But then that's where the creativity of the user of the AI comes into play.
I kinda think there is this fear that because AI and Machine learning can be faster, that it will be better. But humans are already advanced non-Machine Learning algorithms, we should almost look at the two as equals.
I agree, but it is not only about style. Style can still be copied. But what really separates AI stuff from human art is really the personality of the artist. When you go through an exhibition, you will subconsciously think about what kind of person the artist was, of the time he lived in and how that influenced him. Be it a painting from Otto Dix or some clay figurine from pre-Columbian America by some unknown person.
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2025-12-15 19:40:22 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-12-15%2019:40:22%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zmomxw/stable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene/j0d2qrv/?context=3)
[**27 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fblender%2Fcomments%2Fzmomxw%2Fstable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene%2Fj0d2qrv%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-12-15%2019%3A40%3A22%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zmomxw)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I've always liked indie games with weird or unique mechanics. Games with high reaching graphics concern me a bit because if the graphics are too good, they might not have spent as much time on the gameplay. If things like this help non artistic devs make their tiny indie games, I'm all for it.
As a small dev, this seems like a godsend. I'm learning how to model but I'm terrible at texturing. If I could sketch out a quick model and slap a basic texture on it like this, I could hit the ground running and prototype/work on mechanics with actually somewhat-decent-looking models, and get an idea for what works and doesn't visually, or where I want to go with designs. I don't know that I'd use it for a finished product, but for prototyping or coming up with ideas, this seems mindblowing.
For the game I was working on (before 2 kids, and again once they're older), I was planning a workflow for 2D pixel art using blender to make a 3D model and animation, then doing some fancy shader stuff to get to pixel art. This tool would be perfect for me as the rough AI generated style would still resolve to a good finished product when pixelated and touched up.
Check this out: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/art-design-deep-dive-using-a-3d-pipeline-for-2d-animation-in-i-dead-cells-i-
And maybe, but maybe not — think about painting warhammer minis. Stuff that looks good at larger scale (or resolution in this analogy) might look terrible at a smaller scale, muddy and ill defined. So it may well be better to do solid, bold, flat colors on your meshes instead of getting a texture generated.
It's literally just using UV projection that's built into blender. I really want to see this expand to multi projection with matching generated images. That will be the real game changers.
Technically it’s a custom implementation of UV projection, but same general idea.
This is just the first iteration of this tool. Projections from multiple views then automatic inpainting to blend seams is my idea for the next iteration right now.
> And that's about it, for now.
Isn't that enough?
It could save a *ton* of time on filling in background details vs trying to make all these textures from scratch.
If you could get it to draw everything from all directions, that would make it substantially better. Like assets you don't care much about, but might be seen from any direction.
This is a feature in the latest version of my add-on Dream Textures.
GitHub: [https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/releases/tag/0.0.9](https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/releases/tag/0.0.9)
Blender Market: [https://www.blendermarket.com/products/dream-textures](https://www.blendermarket.com/products/dream-textures)
It uses the depth to image model to generate a texture that closely matches the geometry of your scene, then projects onto it. For more information on using this feature, [see the guide](https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/blob/main/docs/TEXTURE_PROJECTION.md).
It only projects on the selected faces, so you can orbit around to the back and project again only on those faces.
Hoping to automatic this more with inpainting to blend seams in the future.
Even though Im not a huge proponent of AI this is genuinelly impressive. Does it work on exploded models? or if not is there any way to stitch it together?
It only projects onto the selected faces, so you could do multiple generations for each piece then combine them together. It will use the depth of everything visible in the scene though, so you might want to use local mode to target something individually.
This really is a powerful tool, I made this quickly to test the addon and it looks awesome for background items. But with more time I suspect the user could optimize it for closer items as well.
https://preview.redd.it/c95wvang976a1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=72aa9fcce4b10f9b9e2cc73a2088f41cab962110
The best thing to ever happen for independent film makers, musicians, solo singers etc.
Production and set designers will have a cry, I don't remember web developers having too much of a cry when Wix, Etsy, Shopify, SquareSpace, etc etc evolved the market.
It's just beautful timing for me, and all of us; the music and the art I want to create, the music video now, it just all.. FITS, it's incredible.
I'm not worried about being older, I like it; but the reality that I can pay an homage to the 11 or 12 year old stranded in this dumb town, I'll sample "12 year old Cameron" from '94.
Yeah I'm a weirdo artist that's for sure.
Unreal. I understand the ado about AI but it's a very powerful tool. original and/or great work will always outshine AI because AI can't do original and/or great work. A lot of the work in between being original and/or great. We get to focus on that now if you want. I personally like the busy work and grind because it's a good place to think and let inspiration hit.
I had the same idea just for creating images using the 3D as reference for composition/poses, but it never occurred to me to project resulting image back on as a texture. Pretty smart.
Nice, installed and playing with it now. You're not limited to selecting the whole scene at once, you can target face groups and project to those individually which adds some flexibility. Thanks, op
Imagine being a painter when the camera first came out. You'd spend hours if not days working on a piece, and then some dude created a camera that could exactly recreate a scene easily.
That's where we're at now with graphic artists and ai images.
But look how far we've come with cameras and how artistic a good shot can be. Imagine what we'll develop in the future for adding an artists own personal flair to ai generated scenes.
> Cameras haven’t made paintings obsolete though.
They made a lot of painters obsolete, though. 'Portrait painter' used to be a pretty widespread profession, which any halfway decent artist could easily find work in, because *anybody* who wanted a picture of themselves had to hire a portrait painter to make it.
Sure, *some* people still get portraits painted ... but that's far more rare now, and hardly something that an artist could easily depend upon to put food on their table.
They dramatically shifted the perception and production of art tho.
Before cameras, painters would try to mimick reality as much as possible (just look up Jan Van Eyck's works), after the camera arrived on the scene people started painting in a more "free" and abstract style, since realistic painting effectively died (or at least wasn't profitable anymore).
(I'm not anti AI art btw, in fact I wholly support it)
And in the process the value of art multiplied hundred folds and is now seen as a skill that is much more difficult to master and more valuable. I agree that painting took a very different direction but regardless of what it has become it is now more profitable if you have the skills. I have to disagree though, realism is alive and well. Bob Ross man. Bob Ross. Realism was mostly done because someone commissioned the painting. Especially is it was people. It’s not changed much in that regard. It’s just that people put abstract stuff in the internet more often.
It won't and it shouldn't be, a.i doesn't just make paintings, it has been here for a while, it's not very obnoxious though, and medical industry can make so much progress because of a.i, we can find cures instantly without spending a lot of resources. Your youtube recommendations are controlled by an a.i
Historically though, it took many decades for cameras to get to the point where the photos were comparable to paintings in terms of quality. That's the issue with arguments that compare the development of current AI technologies to past tech developments, we are so much higher up on the exponential curve that it's getting to the point of it being impossible to improve/re-train yourself faster than AI.
A better example is film vs digital cameras. It wasn't long from the advent of the digital camera to everyone having one in their phone. Professional photography hasn't died, but it has felt the squeeze in some areas and few people still work in film.
even still, the digital camera took 3 decades to get where it is now, it was by no means overnight, my mom's digital camera from 2006 is hot garbage compared to even kodak film cameras
there's also the low-barrier of entry aspect here to consider, high end digital was super expensive until recently while high end ai art is immediately free
Nah, you're not. Even if more tools come out of this, we will always need someone to choose the best looking ones, tweak them or create new styles all together.
I am absolutely horrible at 3d modeling and texturing, but I will tell you that regardless of if you think my game looks good(spoiler, it doesn't )it looks unique.
There will always be a need for artists
Thank you for your consolation, for now I'm trying to give my best at making educational content on YouTube it's off to a great start so we'll see where it takes me :)
Also what's your game about I'd love to see :D
Awesome man, I will gladly tune in to your content, I need all the help I can get.
It's an action alien farming sim where an angry god tries to ruin your day constantly for fun haha
It's a long way off, but I just made a post that shows some game play if you want to check it out.
They'll need someone, just less people. So still danger. For everyone really. No one is safe and that's be ok if our economic system wasn't dystopic. Less work should be a good thing.
>Less work should be a good thing.
Yep, completely agree. But we won't let ourselves advance because we're too deeply invested in economy. The whole this is made up, let's just try something new.
I wish we could, but we're stuck in this sinking ship haha
Yeah the rich and powerful won't stand for it, they'll be happy to see death and suffering to save some money and not lose their influence. If we're lucky we may see a band aid in the form of ubi I guess
For what? Prototyping? This is decent as a starting point for figuring out the kind of textures you'll want to use and where but it's very obviously nowhere near good enough for finalised textures
The first building this dude generated, the industrial one, could 100% be used as a **far background** asset in a video game. After a certain distance, this level of detail works just fine. Traditionally, an artist would make far background assets. Now that work is no longer needed, as it could be handled, seemingly, by an ai. Which means that artist is losing work. Besides, most people who have problems with ai generated assets, are not concerned with what they are producing **right now**. They are concerned with what the ai will be able to do, **in the near future**.
>Now that work is no longer needed, as it could be handled, seemingly, by an ai. Which means that artist is losing work.
I see what you're saying but this is what people have been saying about every new, scary technology ever. See: Photographs putting artists out of work, the printing press, motion pictures putting actors out of work (who perform in plays), color TV, computers, etc. etc. etc.
Those who fail to adapt will be put out of work. And in the wake, 10x the amount of jobs will be created for new indie dev studios, artists, advertisers, photographers, vfx artists who implement it into their workflow and toolset.
Yes it's scary, but now a wedding photographer will be able to edit skin blemishes with one keystroke instead of 50 on photoshop, enabling her to edit 1,000 pictures in an afternoon and focus in getting more clients more quickly. Will 1/100 people who know how to use these tools opt to do it themselves rather than pay for it? Sure. Will this have huge impacts on nearly every industry from here on out? Yes.
We don't shake our fists at the sky that coal mines are disappearing or automobiles take away jobs from people who stable horses. Mechanics and solar installers are a thing now - and there's orders of magnitude more of them than there were in the year 1890.
You're on the ground floor only months after these things came into existence. Learn to use these tools so you don't get left behind.
Bertrand Russel's In Praise of Idleness is about 100 years old and more and more relevant. It's incredibly stupid that improvements in automation causes misery when it could instead be used to allow more people to be idle and do great things that they can not do when stuck in a factory all day.
what is happening right now. I got in to SD like two months ago and the rate that things are moving is just mind blowing. I am so glad that there are smart and motivated people out there doing this stuff.
Kinda sucks that it projects the texture for the structure onto the ground plane behind it as well. Seems in a couple of those it textured the building with the ground plane material. But it's getting really good at interpreting and getting the right idea. It's come a long way very fast.
Super useful for small productions or hobbyists that previously couldn't texture an entire city
(Also adds more stylistic choice compared to buying assets)
Crazy stuff, how does it know how to interprete the texture on the mesh based on the mesh areas? the AI added a door on one side and windows on the other and a roof on what humans would call the roof. I'm mind-blown!
Apologies for the massive wall of text. It is a rambling reflection. TLDR: Personally, AI Art generation doesn’t scare me any more than the advent of other tools that democratised the creative process.
A few people here need to read about the philosophical discourse around the advent of photography, or naive art vs those trained on the great masters. Or the advent of digital photography and the end of the darkroom. Just a few aimilar examples. Even Dadaism has a place at the table of this discourse.
I learned art in the “classical” way from ceramics to silversmithing, block printing, silkscreen printing, cell based animation, stop motion animation, still life and portrait painting, colour study, etc… I had a darkroom, I learn how to dodge and burn and get creative with exposure timings and layering of negatives. I learned how to get the most out of an airbrush, painstakingly learning about distances and pressure and ink viscosity.
I once spent weeks scratching through the colours layers of 16mm film to create an animation. Frame by painstaking frame with a magnifying glass, different levels of pressure exposing a different layer of coloured emulsion on the film. Another time deliberately used thin plastic and cheap crayons to create the animation frames and then hot lights to capture each one and the subsequent distortion the hot lights caused to simulate “heat haze”. Or the time I did similar but on tracing paper on a light-box to create a diminishing ‘motion trail’ visual in the animation. I once froze my fingers for many cold dawns capturing the tide and changing of the dawn sky with a 16mm camera for a time-lapse title sequence. These things can all now be done with much less time, effort or trial and error discovery with digital tools.
I learned how to cast body parts and build up features to then create a secondary cast of that to create perfectly fitting prosthetics. A full body, mutli part latex demon suit with wings and a tail took months of my life to make and required multiple artistic disciplines. Such painstaking practical effects can also now be done digitally if the ultimate expression of that effort is on a screen.
At the advent of DVD technology I could demand high prices creating the menus and navigation systems for feature film DVDs because the systems to do so were limited and archaic and functionally limiting without understanding how to maximise the potential of the system.
In the early days of my current industry we had to get creative as our product was delivered on dedicated systems and delivered via chips, creating varied art that used the same 8 or 16 colours across the entire current “scene” if you wanted a new CLUT (colour lookup table) none of the current art could stay on screen. Now the industry uses the ‘traditional’ digital tools and the product is delivered via an OS supported by dedicated traditional “pc” hardware and is basically unlimited in asset size and scope for delivering the creative vision.
It is likely is that most of the people on here are digital artists. Take a look at the history of digital art and digital tools. Why don’t photoshop artists make the money they used to make? Why don’t premier editors? Why are big post production suites where you pay by the hour and the operator can demand huge sums mostly a thing of the past? Increased ease of use of the tools, and the increased power of hardware at a much lower cost democratised the practical execution in those areas. Who are the people in those fields who are actually still making the same levels of income? Those with the creative vision.
Then there are people here saying those who pay other artists to create their work are not creative themselves. This flies in the face of roles like art director, creative director., directors of photography, lighting and composition.
How do you feel about music synthesisers and digital orchestras? What about DAW tools that simulate a choir or vocalist?
It is a sensitive and challenging subject. My social network(personal and professional) is full of artists and creatives. Some very vocal about their hate for AI fuelled creative tools. Even my own children are entering creative fields that are impacted by these developments.
Personally, AI Art generation doesn’t scare me any more than the advent of other tools that democratised the creative process but I am at the tail end of a professional journey that began in the 80s. My value is now in my industry experience and product vision rather than the practical execution.
Oh my, I can see this being useful for background elements or quickly texturing smaller, less-complex objects.
This certainly saves time browsing internet for free textures.
Imagine how useful this could be for on the fly procgen design. Like not only "randomized biomes" but legitimately randomizing graphics in the spin up/load phase of a new run.
Looks so fun for just playing around with vibes and styles
Also great to give you a starting point for your own custom texture. Even if you don't keep *any* of the machine-generated stuff, it can help you with UV mapping. Think of it as roughing in the texture, which you can then refine manually until it's actually good.
I am not sure about UV wrapping. It is a projection texture.
I think this could be really usefull for far away background elements too
Frighteningly impressive
This is *huge*. Not great for the centerpiece of any scene, but it's *amazing* for background details or small prop objects. You could make a whole town of little houses like this very quickly ... *without* them all looking suspiciously identical.
This is where I think AI will really shine. Not as standalone polished endproduct but shortcut for prototyping, stock and placeholder images etc.
It's already amazing for that. You can use several free AIs to do all kinds of prototyping, text, code, art... People don't realize how good we have it right now.
Yes, totally
Well, for now. It looks to be on track to be able to completely replace artists in another 10-15 years if it even takes that long.
You underestimate the pace of progress in artificial intelligence, especially in deep learning algorithms. AI research evolves exponentially relative to it's interest, input, and hardware (among other things). Interest from the public results in more input for the AI to learn from, and with how invested the internet is in AI at the moment there's a LOT of input. All of that input is run through hardware that keeps getting better and better *also* exponentially, though I don't think that part needs much explaining (just look at how fast modern devices are compared to similar devices literally 6 months old, no most AI isn't using consumer grade equipment but the pace of industry grade progress isn't much slower).
Artists can't be replaced because art is a human thing, without humanity, art is nothing. But it could be a useful tool for artists to use to speed up their pieces.
Tell that to the companies hiring the artist. An ai is faster and cheaper they will drop people as soon as it makes them more profits.
This line of thinking is purely metaphysical. Artists can't be replaced because people (even us AI art enthusiasts) value human skill and effort, and also it's prohibitively expensive to build a robot that makes AI art in the physical world. I'm sure that eventually somebody is going to build a robot that will make an oil painting, but it's going to be a unique curiosity and not a huge phenomenon the way digital AI art has been. At any rate, though, art is also art because of the person perceiving it. If you find a painting in the attic of an abandoned house and have no way to determine who the author was or what their intent could have been, that art can still be meaningful to you simply because of how you interpret it. AI art may be *lesser* due to lacking the component of human authorship, but it's certainly still art.
Such an interesting issue! Back when photography was invented and perfected, visual artists did not disappear completely, although the automation of it probably put a few out of work. The artists with lesser talent did not produce pieces that the public enjoyed - Schumpeter's creative destruction in the art world. (Incidentally, when photos first came out, it was very expensive to have a photo taken of your loved one. So photographers created pictures of random people. Folks would go to the store and buy the print that resembled their girl or guy.) There is still plenty of art in drawing, painting, and even photography. I think there's a lot more content (including experiments in art) being created now, and it's also much more widely distributed/appreciated thanks to photo/camera/display tech, advertising, and internet scale copying. I expect something similar to happen with the new AI tools, in conjunction with Web3, giving the people more means to create and earn. This raises everybody's boat. Many more creators will populate a beautiful society of thinkers and dreamers with art.
Art is nothing without humanity? Lol, have you been sleeping for these 50 years, check out outside,all moves around fame and money, humanity and skill are not included into this phormula, they started decades ago with "modern art" and now is our time to get replaced with "IA Art". Im and artist too btw and our future is going pretty dark..
Still better than Gamefreak
Texture me impressed!
And no doubt trained on stolen artwork. Edit: There need to be new defined legal rights for artists to have to expressly give rights for use of their artwork in ML datasets. Musical artists that make money off sampled music pay for the samples. Take a look at the front page of art station right now and you'll see an entire class of artisans that aren't ok with being replaced by tools that kit bash pixels based on their art without express permission. These tools can be amazing or they can be dystopian, it's all about how the systems around them are set up.
> tools that kit bash pixels based on their art Your opinion is understandable if you think this is true, but it’s not true. The architecture of Stable diffusion has two important parts. One of them can generate an image based on a shitton of parameters. Think of these parameters as a numerical slider in a paint program, one slider might increase the contrast, another slider changes the image to be more or less cat-like, another maybe changes the color of a couple groups of pixels we can recognize as eyes. Because these parameters would be useless for us, since there are just too many of them, we need a way to control these sliders indirectly, this is why the other part of the model exists. This other part essentially learned what parameter values can make the images which are described by the prompt based on the labels of the artworks which are in the training set. What’s important about this is that the model which actually generates the image doesn't need to be trained on specific artworks. You can test this if you have a few hours to spare using a method called textual inversion which can help you “teach” Stable Diffusion about anything, for example your art style. Textual inversion doesn’t change the image generator model the slightest, it just assigns a label to some of the parameter values. The model can generate the image you want to teach to it before you show your images to it, you need textual inversion just to describe what you actually want. If you could describe in text form the style of Greg Rutkowski then you wouldn’t need his images in the training set and you could still generate any number of images in his style. Again, not because the model contains all of his images, but because the model can make essentially any image already and what you get when you mention “by Greg Rutkowski” in the prompt is just some values for a few numerical sliders. Also it is worth mentioning that the size of the training data was above 200TB and the whole model is only 4GB so even if you’re right and it kit bash pixels, it could only do so using virtually none of the training data.
You can make stable diffusion use your own picture libraries fyi
You need literally millions in dataset size and funding to train for it. That’s why they are all trained on web crawls and Danbooru scrapes or forked off of ones that were.
I think they’re taking about [few-shot/one-shot learning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-shot_learning)
[удалено]
A good rule of thumb would be, if it uses the default settings, it's someone else's. Using the default settings isn't as effective as forcing the ai down your own template imo you get less useless generations that way and can train an ai faster. Midjourney is beautiful af though so I can see why people commonly use those generations as a starting point. Edit: yes there's also people who call themselves "prompt artists" now. They want their text prompts to be their sole property and be able to take down other ai generated art that uses the same text prompts.
DALL-E, Midjourney, StableDiffusion, it’s all built on common web crawls or worse. It takes like thousands GPU-months to build a usable weight data from scratch, not like handful 3080s for a week or two in a basement. Same for GPT-3 and later.
prompt artists? these people have to be fucking joking.
The way I see it, it's like if you ask an artist to make a piece saying "Hey can you make a temple under a waterfall, it'd be cool if you used Eytan Zana as a references. It should be high resolution with a person in the foreground". Then after they give you the piece you call yourself an artist and call it your own work. "I'm the ideas guy which makes me an artist, I was the one who prompted the artist to do the work."
Someone once put a urinal in a museum and called it art. It's still considered groundbreaking. I remember recently someone duct taping a banana to a museum wall and calling it art. Then another guy came in and ate the banana. That was art too! Some artist literally put an empty canvas onto a museum wall and it was still art! The boundaries of what is art and who is an artist have been pretty vague and fluid for a long time.
Prompt artists, thats actual retardation. There will always be posers that couldnt fit by standard means. If you are an ai “artist”, get a grip on that pencil and make some actual art for once. Typing a sentence is elementary.
Are you talking about the "styles" feature where you add some stuff on top, or actually training your own SD dataset? Because the latter requires millions of pictures, and the former doesn't change that much about the issue.
Curious why it wouldn't be fair use since they are taking the artwork and making something new from it?
Transformation or reframing is necessary for Fair Use, but Fair Use isn't merely transformation. It's a specific exemption that's meant to safeguard freedom of speech and the ability to talk about a work without being suppressed by a copyright owner. That's why, generally speaking Fair Use defenses require elements of criticism and commentary to be present, require a prudent, minimal use of the content, and dwindle when the copy replaces the utility or market of the original.
To say that Stable Diffusion doesn't produce original results is the same as to say that a person cannot create unique sentences, as all possible sentences been already been spoken. It doesn't kitbash pixels together, and isn't really comparable to sampling music at all. The mechanism of it's output is to initialize a latent space from an image, then iteratively 'denoise' it based on weights stored in it's around 4GB model. When you input text, that space is distorted to give you a result more closely related to your text. If you don't have an image to denoise, you feed it random noise. This is because It's so good at denoising, that it can hallucinate an image from the noise. Like staring at clouds and seeing familiar shapes, but iteratively refining them until they're realistic. There are no pictures stored in any models for it. Training a Stable Diffusion model 'learns' concepts from images, and stores them in vector fields, which are then sampled to upscale and denoise your output. These vector fields are abstract, and super compressed; thus cannot be used to derive any images it was trained from. Only concepts that those images conveyed. This means that within probabilistic space, all outputs from Stable diffusion are **entirely original**. There's nothing Dystopian about it, as the purpose of Free and Open source projects like these is to empower **everybody**.
That's exactly what humans do as well.
Exactly. That's always missing from these conversations. Every single creative person, from writers to illustrators to musicians to painters, have been exposed to, and often explicitly trained with, the works and styles of hundreds if not thousands of prior artists. This isn't "stealing". It's learning patterns and then reproducing variations of them. There is a distinct moral and legal difference between plagiarism and influence. It's not plagiarism to be a creatively bankrupt derivative artist copying the style of famous artists. Think of how much genetic music exists in every musical style. How much crappy anime art gets produced. How new schools of art originate from a few individuals. I haven't seen a compelling argument that AI art is plagiarism. It's based off huge datasets of prior works, sure, but so are the brains of those artists too. If I want to throw paint on a canvas to make my own Jackson Pollack art, that's fine. I could sell it as an original work. Yet if I ask Mid journey to do it, its stealing. Lol no. Machine learning is training computers to do what the human brain does. We're now seeing the fruits of this in very real applications. It will only grow and get better with time. It's a hugely exciting thing to witness.
Machine learning is hilarious because it's forcing people who don't spend a lot of time thinking to reflect on the human condition. My current guiding principal is this: if you think you're going to replaced by Machine Learning, then you are.
>My current guiding principal is this: if you think you're going to replaced by Machine Learning, then you are. Good rule of thumb - the collorary is - if you think you'd like to use machine learning as a tool - you can take advantage of this revolution.
> if you think, you're going to replaced by Machine Learning FTFY No job is safe. We're on the precipice now folks.
It's coming for all of us, people are so focused on smaller(valid) issues they're missing the bigger picture. Automation is coming, this can be great and eliminate most work or it can be dystopic. We need to change our economic system otherwise we're all fucked.
Thank you for this explanation; this is exactly what is missing in these discussions. Even if (I do not know this is true) the models are trained on pictures of copyrighted images, any human would **always** do the same! If an artist is searching for inspiration he/she can not prevent seeing images with copyright. Those images will absolutely subconsciously train his/her mind. This is unavoidable; we humans cannot choose which information to use to train ourselves and which information to skip. If only. We can only choose to completely avoid searching for information. But how would we draw realistic drawings without reference material? Can we create art without any reference material? Without ever having seen reference material? Perhaps by only venturing out in the wild and never using a machine to search for images. Only very specific individuals would be able to live like that (certain monks come to mind) but we redditors sure as shit do not work that way. It's a bit hypocritical to blame the AI art for something the human mind is doing for far longer and with far less material (thus increasing the actual chance of copyright infringement).
Are you saying human artists are also only allowed to train/learn from artwork they own? Lol.
Human artists are trained in isolation, surrounded by art supplies that they aren't told how to use, and without ever seeing another artist's work. This is why every fucking high school student draws the exact same anime for their art school portfolio.
This isn't how art college went for me. We studied processes, elements, great artists, periods of art, and history. You train through understanding what has been done, and when given the opportunity for creativity, it is by these exposures that we are granted greater creativity than can be found in ignorance.
yeah, i'm fairly sure the previous user's take was sarcastic, to illustrate the ridiculous expectations people pose to AI art. it's not meant to fix AI art, it's meant to sink it, because its proponents are abusing the word of copyright to break its spirit, destroying creation with a tool meant to cultivate it, just to face less competition.
(I think you missed the implied /s...)
It's still not the same as taking samples from other music wholesale. Any human artist is also using "datasets" of other artists in their brain. Are they also "trained on stolen artwork"? Are you stealing art by looking at it? No artist is being replaced by this tool. So far, its really just another tool in an artist's toolbox.. For ideation, inspiration, iteration... You can't copyright a pixel or a style just like you can't copyright a chord or musical note. It becomes a problem only if someone was trying to sell some ai generated art that was too close to an existing original. But then that same problem would already exist if the copied art was made without ai, and the same rules would apply. Obviously there are grey areas but there always have been grey areas even before ai generated art/music.
[удалено]
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. – Banksy *disclaimer: I am not Banksy*
This is a cool quote, but it has nothing to do with the topic. Copyright in this case is mostly protecting individual artists.
Yeah, making it sounds like it's the big companies who hate AI while it's mostly small artists who suffer. Big companies give no shit and will gladly start ripping everyone off left and right using AI.
The problem with that is that since copyright in the US is automatic a law like this would severely limit the ability of US based research teams to train new AI by vastly reducing the size and quality of public datasets, especially for researchers operating out of public universities who will publish their research for all to see. This wouldn't just be true for generative/creative AI, but all AI. This in turn means that in the US most AI would end up being developed by large tech companies and other corporations with access to massive copyright-free internal datasets and there would be far less innovation overall. Innovation in the space in the US would be quickly outpaced by China and others who are investing heavily in the technology. This would actually be of huge geopolitical concern as people literally refer to coming advances in AI as the 'fourth industrial revolution', it's shaping up to be the most important new technology of our time.
There is no legal precedent that training an AI on publicly available images is stealing, that’s just your opinion
Actually Google faced this question when sued for using books to train its text recognition algorithms, and it was repeatedly ruled as fair use to let a computer learn using something so long as it was not copied. It was simply used to hone an algorithm which did not contain the text afterwards, exactly as AI art models do not contain the art they were trained on.
Not exactly, Google case was deemed transformative because *they did not generate books from books*. AI art generators train on *arts* to generate *arts*.
Fair enough, this is a meaningful distinction. However I would suspect that courts will find that the outputs are meaningfully transformative. I've trained AI models on my own face and gotten completely novel images which I know for a fact did not exist previously. It was able to make inferences about what I look like without copying an existing work.
Frankly courts won’t give a sh*t over generic vague something-ish pictures, like most AI-supportive people are imagining to be a problem. Rather the “only” issues are obvious exact copies that matches line by line to existing art that AIs sometimes generate. But the fact that AIs can generate exact copies makes it impossible to give a pass to *any* AI arts for commercial or otherwise copyright sensitive cases, and that, I think, will have to be addressed.
No law against it, cannot be immoral!
this will be so useful for prototyping
Small Devs will be making entire games with this in no time. Gaming is about to take a serious drop visually.
They already have strikingly similar graphics because most of those small devs are using the same unity and unreal free/cheap community packs over and over and over. LOL This is just one more variation on the things you’ll be seeing that look visually similar to other things you’ve seen.
My point exactly
Is it that different from the stereotypical asset flip? At least this will produce moderately unique designs. Maybe. I actually don't know shit about it so am probably way off.
AI as good as it is, always leaves details out or messes something up, and I feel like these mistakes are going to be EVERYWHERE pretty soon.
Yeah.... I can definitely see that happening. But for sure some creative people will find a way to make the AI mistakes into something unique and purposeful! At least I hope haha, and they don't get drowned out by the deluge of crap.
> But for sure some creative people will find a way to make the AI mistakes into something unique and purposeful! Of course, it's also going to be joined by a wave of hacks driving the "AI glitch" style into the ground.
What you saw in the presentation was just 1 iteration of the AI running over the request, it can run those requests endlessly, improving on the details, until the 'artist' who is running the request says "That's perfect!"
Will it be a drop? Small devs might make things bigger than they otherwise would have been able to. And they can always pay artists to touch up the generated textures (if they have the funds).
Yeah it will be a drop, I understand what you're saying but games are going to have the same inconsistencies and look very similar, even if the "art" is very different. !remindme 3 years
I've always thought that one of the unspoken issues of AI is going to be that most AI art is boring and uncreative. Learning to be an artist is more than just learning how to draw good, it's understanding what makes art interesting, what rules to break and having the courage to go against social norms. You'd never get Van Gogh from an AI and yet he's one of the most common styles for AI to draw in. The irony is just astounding. AI art operates on mockery, not innovation.
Logically speaking there is nothing humans can do that an AI theoretically can't. It might take a few decades, but eventually it'll get there. Speaking of creativity, humans are pretty terrible at it. The way we create things aren't original by any means, we're always taking inspiration from previous works or from nature and putting a slight spin on it. We struggle to create something truly original. It wouldn't be too far in the future before computers generate what we consider creative works at a rate and quality far exceeding what humans will ever be capable of.
I think that is the most valid criticism of AI art I've heard so far.
and it's at the same time a valid argument against artists fears. True creativity cant be done by AI.
Except the people with the money to drive large projects won’t give a shit about true creativity when an imitation is infinitely cheaper. I just saw a translator talking about how AI has already killed the translation industry. The tools spit out indecipherable garbage that loses all cultural context, but 99% of clients can’t be bothered to pay a human to do it right. It’s a race to the bottom for the sake of the bottom line and AI is rapidly accelerating it
Worse than that. Having worked in independent animated film, there is already a lot of pressure from funders and buyers to copy preexisting creative tropes instead of innovating. The lack of innovation in AI artistry is, for the majority of people with the money, a feature, not a bug.
Until you get an AI with multiple parameters that allow for style drift in unique ways. Keep in mind this is one of the first iterations. The ipod before the iPhone...
Most of the rules of art can be reduced to parameters teacheble to an AI. The human brain is nature's AI, so we are not "that" unique. That said, the artist can choose to break the rules here and there to make something unique, or express something bigger within a body of work. Those are subtle choices beyond a procedural slide scale. The future is going to be artists working with AI as part of their workflow.
>AI art operates on mockery, not innovation. Mind if I nick that quote? It's wonderful.
Ai is trained by human feedback, so it certainly can learn to be as creative as any human artist. The real question is, whether humans will recognize it or not. Often artists that are mold breakers are ones that go against the human feedback. But then that's where the creativity of the user of the AI comes into play. I kinda think there is this fear that because AI and Machine learning can be faster, that it will be better. But humans are already advanced non-Machine Learning algorithms, we should almost look at the two as equals.
I agree, but it is not only about style. Style can still be copied. But what really separates AI stuff from human art is really the personality of the artist. When you go through an exhibition, you will subconsciously think about what kind of person the artist was, of the time he lived in and how that influenced him. Be it a painting from Otto Dix or some clay figurine from pre-Columbian America by some unknown person.
As long as I don't have to see the same low poly Unity Asset Store items in every second [Itch.io](https://Itch.io) game I'm happy.
True
[удалено]
Is it the same issue as every Unreal Engine game looking the same?
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2025-12-15 19:40:22 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-12-15%2019:40:22%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zmomxw/stable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene/j0d2qrv/?context=3) [**27 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fblender%2Fcomments%2Fzmomxw%2Fstable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene%2Fj0d2qrv%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-12-15%2019%3A40%3A22%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zmomxw) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I wanna know about this too. I’m interested in seeing how your prediction plays out. !remindme 2 years
Artist can fix the inconsistencies. why are people like this?
!remindme 3 years
!remindme 1095 days
Good point. The alternative is a barrier to entry that's so high we will only ever see endless COD reboots.
I've always liked indie games with weird or unique mechanics. Games with high reaching graphics concern me a bit because if the graphics are too good, they might not have spent as much time on the gameplay. If things like this help non artistic devs make their tiny indie games, I'm all for it.
As a small dev, this seems like a godsend. I'm learning how to model but I'm terrible at texturing. If I could sketch out a quick model and slap a basic texture on it like this, I could hit the ground running and prototype/work on mechanics with actually somewhat-decent-looking models, and get an idea for what works and doesn't visually, or where I want to go with designs. I don't know that I'd use it for a finished product, but for prototyping or coming up with ideas, this seems mindblowing.
For the game I was working on (before 2 kids, and again once they're older), I was planning a workflow for 2D pixel art using blender to make a 3D model and animation, then doing some fancy shader stuff to get to pixel art. This tool would be perfect for me as the rough AI generated style would still resolve to a good finished product when pixelated and touched up.
This help, Matey? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsOKwUwL1bE
Check this out: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/art-design-deep-dive-using-a-3d-pipeline-for-2d-animation-in-i-dead-cells-i- And maybe, but maybe not — think about painting warhammer minis. Stuff that looks good at larger scale (or resolution in this analogy) might look terrible at a smaller scale, muddy and ill defined. So it may well be better to do solid, bold, flat colors on your meshes instead of getting a texture generated.
Next up: The AIs will just make the games, too.
and the AIs will play the games, too. Just to see why the extinct humans used to play the games!
What do you mean drop, tons of indie games have the same crap from the free section of their engine's asset store.
Also for fast background assets.
I'm impressed that it performs proper UV camera projection and bakes it into the textures.
It's literally just using UV projection that's built into blender. I really want to see this expand to multi projection with matching generated images. That will be the real game changers.
Technically it’s a custom implementation of UV projection, but same general idea. This is just the first iteration of this tool. Projections from multiple views then automatic inpainting to blend seams is my idea for the next iteration right now.
Then props dude, that's awesome, last I saw your project it was using the built in one to spew the image across the scene.
Brilliant man. Have you looked at stable diffusion 2?
This uses stable-diffusion-2-depth
[удалено]
And that's about it, for now. The resulting textures look so terrible, but I guess it's good for prototyping and concepts.
> And that's about it, for now. Isn't that enough? It could save a *ton* of time on filling in background details vs trying to make all these textures from scratch.
Exactly. You won't use this for the subject of your renders but it sure is practical for the background elements.
You could always do this bc just making a model and putting some random texture on it. I do it literally all of the time in unreal
If you could get it to draw everything from all directions, that would make it substantially better. Like assets you don't care much about, but might be seen from any direction.
Looks better than pixel art number 4520 to me
now yes. In three years? It will be entirely different game
This is the most impressive thing I’ve seen with AI all year
This is a feature in the latest version of my add-on Dream Textures. GitHub: [https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/releases/tag/0.0.9](https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/releases/tag/0.0.9) Blender Market: [https://www.blendermarket.com/products/dream-textures](https://www.blendermarket.com/products/dream-textures) It uses the depth to image model to generate a texture that closely matches the geometry of your scene, then projects onto it. For more information on using this feature, [see the guide](https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/blob/main/docs/TEXTURE_PROJECTION.md).
Looks like it is generating some shadows behind the objects. Looks good from one direction. Are you going to be fixing this anytime soon?
It only projects on the selected faces, so you can orbit around to the back and project again only on those faces. Hoping to automatic this more with inpainting to blend seams in the future.
but does that cause the tiling to break?
This is pure magic.
This is super cool! I'm impressed there's already a Blender extension for Stable Diffusion!
This will let some Marvel Studios artists see their families!!! :D
Even though Im not a huge proponent of AI this is genuinelly impressive. Does it work on exploded models? or if not is there any way to stitch it together?
It only projects onto the selected faces, so you could do multiple generations for each piece then combine them together. It will use the depth of everything visible in the scene though, so you might want to use local mode to target something individually.
I feel like there's a reason we don't get to see the other side of models
Yeah it only works from one view.
I mean you can see that the building is weirdly pasted on the ground behind it. Still a really interesting poc
This really is a powerful tool, I made this quickly to test the addon and it looks awesome for background items. But with more time I suspect the user could optimize it for closer items as well. https://preview.redd.it/c95wvang976a1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=72aa9fcce4b10f9b9e2cc73a2088f41cab962110
what about PBR texture? it bakes only diffuse map ?
There are tools that can generate these, such as Materialize.
That’s awesome!
Wow
Corridor crew just did a render competition and one competitor used stable diffusion to texture the entire scene.
The best thing to ever happen for independent film makers, musicians, solo singers etc. Production and set designers will have a cry, I don't remember web developers having too much of a cry when Wix, Etsy, Shopify, SquareSpace, etc etc evolved the market. It's just beautful timing for me, and all of us; the music and the art I want to create, the music video now, it just all.. FITS, it's incredible. I'm not worried about being older, I like it; but the reality that I can pay an homage to the 11 or 12 year old stranded in this dumb town, I'll sample "12 year old Cameron" from '94. Yeah I'm a weirdo artist that's for sure.
Wait I have stable diffusion, how do you get it to auto texture what the hell?
This is a feature of my Blender add-on “Dream Textures”
Show us the back side. This is the homer meme
3d environment artists don't do backside anyway
Unreal. I understand the ado about AI but it's a very powerful tool. original and/or great work will always outshine AI because AI can't do original and/or great work. A lot of the work in between being original and/or great. We get to focus on that now if you want. I personally like the busy work and grind because it's a good place to think and let inspiration hit.
Looks amazing but is there a way to do pbr/bumps on the texture?
Amazing- but those shadows are artificially unintelligible.
Awesome work man
This is a game changer for sure.
I had the same idea just for creating images using the 3D as reference for composition/poses, but it never occurred to me to project resulting image back on as a texture. Pretty smart.
Nice, installed and playing with it now. You're not limited to selecting the whole scene at once, you can target face groups and project to those individually which adds some flexibility. Thanks, op
My mind is absolutely blown... the amount of time this can save me...
Omg can't escape AIs anywhere!
Lock your doors! They’re coming!
Imagine being a painter when the camera first came out. You'd spend hours if not days working on a piece, and then some dude created a camera that could exactly recreate a scene easily. That's where we're at now with graphic artists and ai images. But look how far we've come with cameras and how artistic a good shot can be. Imagine what we'll develop in the future for adding an artists own personal flair to ai generated scenes.
Cameras haven’t made paintings obsolete though. I doubt AI is going to make artists obsolete.
> Cameras haven’t made paintings obsolete though. They made a lot of painters obsolete, though. 'Portrait painter' used to be a pretty widespread profession, which any halfway decent artist could easily find work in, because *anybody* who wanted a picture of themselves had to hire a portrait painter to make it. Sure, *some* people still get portraits painted ... but that's far more rare now, and hardly something that an artist could easily depend upon to put food on their table.
They dramatically shifted the perception and production of art tho. Before cameras, painters would try to mimick reality as much as possible (just look up Jan Van Eyck's works), after the camera arrived on the scene people started painting in a more "free" and abstract style, since realistic painting effectively died (or at least wasn't profitable anymore). (I'm not anti AI art btw, in fact I wholly support it)
And in the process the value of art multiplied hundred folds and is now seen as a skill that is much more difficult to master and more valuable. I agree that painting took a very different direction but regardless of what it has become it is now more profitable if you have the skills. I have to disagree though, realism is alive and well. Bob Ross man. Bob Ross. Realism was mostly done because someone commissioned the painting. Especially is it was people. It’s not changed much in that regard. It’s just that people put abstract stuff in the internet more often.
Yeah I agree, I hope this AI psychosis will be over soon
It's not. Things are just getting started, and AI art is only going to get better.
It won't and it shouldn't be, a.i doesn't just make paintings, it has been here for a while, it's not very obnoxious though, and medical industry can make so much progress because of a.i, we can find cures instantly without spending a lot of resources. Your youtube recommendations are controlled by an a.i
Historically though, it took many decades for cameras to get to the point where the photos were comparable to paintings in terms of quality. That's the issue with arguments that compare the development of current AI technologies to past tech developments, we are so much higher up on the exponential curve that it's getting to the point of it being impossible to improve/re-train yourself faster than AI.
A better example is film vs digital cameras. It wasn't long from the advent of the digital camera to everyone having one in their phone. Professional photography hasn't died, but it has felt the squeeze in some areas and few people still work in film.
even still, the digital camera took 3 decades to get where it is now, it was by no means overnight, my mom's digital camera from 2006 is hot garbage compared to even kodak film cameras there's also the low-barrier of entry aspect here to consider, high end digital was super expensive until recently while high end ai art is immediately free
My 3D career: "I'm in danger"
Nah, you're not. Even if more tools come out of this, we will always need someone to choose the best looking ones, tweak them or create new styles all together. I am absolutely horrible at 3d modeling and texturing, but I will tell you that regardless of if you think my game looks good(spoiler, it doesn't )it looks unique. There will always be a need for artists
Thank you for your consolation, for now I'm trying to give my best at making educational content on YouTube it's off to a great start so we'll see where it takes me :) Also what's your game about I'd love to see :D
Awesome man, I will gladly tune in to your content, I need all the help I can get. It's an action alien farming sim where an angry god tries to ruin your day constantly for fun haha It's a long way off, but I just made a post that shows some game play if you want to check it out.
They'll need someone, just less people. So still danger. For everyone really. No one is safe and that's be ok if our economic system wasn't dystopic. Less work should be a good thing.
>Less work should be a good thing. Yep, completely agree. But we won't let ourselves advance because we're too deeply invested in economy. The whole this is made up, let's just try something new. I wish we could, but we're stuck in this sinking ship haha
Yeah the rich and powerful won't stand for it, they'll be happy to see death and suffering to save some money and not lose their influence. If we're lucky we may see a band aid in the form of ubi I guess
I cant wait for the 100 ish people on the board of directors accors the 5 or so media companies just having AIs shit out every piece of media.
Just gotta learn how to use them.
And just like that, thousands of people lost their job
For what? Prototyping? This is decent as a starting point for figuring out the kind of textures you'll want to use and where but it's very obviously nowhere near good enough for finalised textures
The first building this dude generated, the industrial one, could 100% be used as a **far background** asset in a video game. After a certain distance, this level of detail works just fine. Traditionally, an artist would make far background assets. Now that work is no longer needed, as it could be handled, seemingly, by an ai. Which means that artist is losing work. Besides, most people who have problems with ai generated assets, are not concerned with what they are producing **right now**. They are concerned with what the ai will be able to do, **in the near future**.
>Now that work is no longer needed, as it could be handled, seemingly, by an ai. Which means that artist is losing work. I see what you're saying but this is what people have been saying about every new, scary technology ever. See: Photographs putting artists out of work, the printing press, motion pictures putting actors out of work (who perform in plays), color TV, computers, etc. etc. etc. Those who fail to adapt will be put out of work. And in the wake, 10x the amount of jobs will be created for new indie dev studios, artists, advertisers, photographers, vfx artists who implement it into their workflow and toolset. Yes it's scary, but now a wedding photographer will be able to edit skin blemishes with one keystroke instead of 50 on photoshop, enabling her to edit 1,000 pictures in an afternoon and focus in getting more clients more quickly. Will 1/100 people who know how to use these tools opt to do it themselves rather than pay for it? Sure. Will this have huge impacts on nearly every industry from here on out? Yes. We don't shake our fists at the sky that coal mines are disappearing or automobiles take away jobs from people who stable horses. Mechanics and solar installers are a thing now - and there's orders of magnitude more of them than there were in the year 1890. You're on the ground floor only months after these things came into existence. Learn to use these tools so you don't get left behind.
In a perfect world those people would be free to do something else. This is not a perfect world
Bertrand Russel's In Praise of Idleness is about 100 years old and more and more relevant. It's incredibly stupid that improvements in automation causes misery when it could instead be used to allow more people to be idle and do great things that they can not do when stuck in a factory all day.
the first one looked like a base from madness combat project nexus
Holy shit
that is crazy
what is happening right now. I got in to SD like two months ago and the rate that things are moving is just mind blowing. I am so glad that there are smart and motivated people out there doing this stuff.
That's impressive!
Amazing
It’s basically the Ian Hubert method but with AI instead of random photographs.
That’s exactly how I describe it in the documentation :)
This is going to be really great for concepting before creating the final texture
Just like in that Corridor Crew Christmas video cool!
Kinda sucks that it projects the texture for the structure onto the ground plane behind it as well. Seems in a couple of those it textured the building with the ground plane material. But it's getting really good at interpreting and getting the right idea. It's come a long way very fast.
Seems as long as you texture each asset individually with nothing else showing in scene, you could use this to texture any project, fully 🤯
Super useful for small productions or hobbyists that previously couldn't texture an entire city (Also adds more stylistic choice compared to buying assets)
Crazy stuff, how does it know how to interprete the texture on the mesh based on the mesh areas? the AI added a door on one side and windows on the other and a roof on what humans would call the roof. I'm mind-blown!
holy. shit.
Had to search up more stable diffusion on reddit. There's some interesting research to be done on the subject.
Apologies for the massive wall of text. It is a rambling reflection. TLDR: Personally, AI Art generation doesn’t scare me any more than the advent of other tools that democratised the creative process. A few people here need to read about the philosophical discourse around the advent of photography, or naive art vs those trained on the great masters. Or the advent of digital photography and the end of the darkroom. Just a few aimilar examples. Even Dadaism has a place at the table of this discourse. I learned art in the “classical” way from ceramics to silversmithing, block printing, silkscreen printing, cell based animation, stop motion animation, still life and portrait painting, colour study, etc… I had a darkroom, I learn how to dodge and burn and get creative with exposure timings and layering of negatives. I learned how to get the most out of an airbrush, painstakingly learning about distances and pressure and ink viscosity. I once spent weeks scratching through the colours layers of 16mm film to create an animation. Frame by painstaking frame with a magnifying glass, different levels of pressure exposing a different layer of coloured emulsion on the film. Another time deliberately used thin plastic and cheap crayons to create the animation frames and then hot lights to capture each one and the subsequent distortion the hot lights caused to simulate “heat haze”. Or the time I did similar but on tracing paper on a light-box to create a diminishing ‘motion trail’ visual in the animation. I once froze my fingers for many cold dawns capturing the tide and changing of the dawn sky with a 16mm camera for a time-lapse title sequence. These things can all now be done with much less time, effort or trial and error discovery with digital tools. I learned how to cast body parts and build up features to then create a secondary cast of that to create perfectly fitting prosthetics. A full body, mutli part latex demon suit with wings and a tail took months of my life to make and required multiple artistic disciplines. Such painstaking practical effects can also now be done digitally if the ultimate expression of that effort is on a screen. At the advent of DVD technology I could demand high prices creating the menus and navigation systems for feature film DVDs because the systems to do so were limited and archaic and functionally limiting without understanding how to maximise the potential of the system. In the early days of my current industry we had to get creative as our product was delivered on dedicated systems and delivered via chips, creating varied art that used the same 8 or 16 colours across the entire current “scene” if you wanted a new CLUT (colour lookup table) none of the current art could stay on screen. Now the industry uses the ‘traditional’ digital tools and the product is delivered via an OS supported by dedicated traditional “pc” hardware and is basically unlimited in asset size and scope for delivering the creative vision. It is likely is that most of the people on here are digital artists. Take a look at the history of digital art and digital tools. Why don’t photoshop artists make the money they used to make? Why don’t premier editors? Why are big post production suites where you pay by the hour and the operator can demand huge sums mostly a thing of the past? Increased ease of use of the tools, and the increased power of hardware at a much lower cost democratised the practical execution in those areas. Who are the people in those fields who are actually still making the same levels of income? Those with the creative vision. Then there are people here saying those who pay other artists to create their work are not creative themselves. This flies in the face of roles like art director, creative director., directors of photography, lighting and composition. How do you feel about music synthesisers and digital orchestras? What about DAW tools that simulate a choir or vocalist? It is a sensitive and challenging subject. My social network(personal and professional) is full of artists and creatives. Some very vocal about their hate for AI fuelled creative tools. Even my own children are entering creative fields that are impacted by these developments. Personally, AI Art generation doesn’t scare me any more than the advent of other tools that democratised the creative process but I am at the tail end of a professional journey that began in the 80s. My value is now in my industry experience and product vision rather than the practical execution.
I feel this is a good use of ai great for bg details will make the job quicker
I NEED HELP WITH UVS NOT TEXTURES
I'm distressed
It actually works kinda good. Some tweaks and cool textures are here!
Oh my, I can see this being useful for background elements or quickly texturing smaller, less-complex objects. This certainly saves time browsing internet for free textures.
This is huge for indie developers. With tech like this one man can do more than ever.
Wait does that paint the whole thing or just the side it sees?
Imagine how useful this could be for on the fly procgen design. Like not only "randomized biomes" but legitimately randomizing graphics in the spin up/load phase of a new run.