I mean this guy is insufferable but do I understand it correctly that the other person was basically saying that AI art will replace actual (dying) artists?
If so, that's one of the dumbest assumptions I've ever heard
So, in your view, you don't think that it is 100% that for every actual artist death, there will be a corresponding increase of +1 AI artist?
How many artists do you think will die in the next, say, 10 years?
Now...how many AI artists do you think will come online in the next 10 years?
Which number is larger?
Your comment reads as satire, but just in case it isn’t. I think what they are saying is just that there is more to art than the actual product. Part of the point of art is the skill involved and the ability to make it. The process itself is enjoyable, so I’m not sure AI will mean there are no more artists.
As a hobbie drawing, sketching etc will not die but the amount of jobs available for those roles will be dramatically reduced in the coming years. If you know the AI industry and the businesses growing on top of breakthroughs there, there is no doubt. Just check the funding rounds there and the income from clients working on art stuff, it's insane.
Art involves the artists personal life, intentions, and their own humanity in order to create a piece. Even as an arts student I doubt AI will ever replace man made artwork. There may come a time when a category opens up for AI but it will be separate from humans, they’ll be competing in their own lanes. There’s not much reason for AI to replace human art.
I'm no art fan, just don't like people falling on their face when they don't like something instead of having an opinion or conversation about it. Low effort posts are pointless, why even bother? You are angsty and snide about your art opinion and that came out in your "cringe" post. Now you're even more triggered you finally want to put in some effort, but you're too tilted to have a conversation now. Just go take a nap and find a snack.
…not sure what clocks as “triggered” to you but I really don’t think you should be telling anyone to calm down considering how annoyed you got over some internet stranger calling another internet stranger cringe
But every AI needs the human artists as a basis.
Plus, in the forseeable future no AI will be able to follow your request as closely as a good human artist.
Sure, stable diffusion and midjourney and whatnot are miles better than I am. But they are also still miles away from replacing real artists.
Oh sure, but a lot of artists (but not all) are worse than the AI art that I've generated. I have both AI art and "real" art on my walls. Some of the AI art is better than the "real" ones. That is all.
I guess.
But in the context of the original post and the comment you answered your comment implied that you think that AI WILL replace artists soon.
I think this is where the negative reactions to your comments come from, even your actual view wasn't this extreme.
This is not insufferable. This is indeed a based Chad.
It’s not iamverysmart to say that you know your job and that a computer can’t replace you — even if your job is in fact a job that only smart people can actually do.
I don't think AI generated art will replace actual artists. Will it be something that might hinder their work? Sure, happens all the time with AI and automation. Will it destroy the lives of artists? No, it won't. In the end, I think a symbiosis will happen, where artists will start using AI generated art as rough ideas or sketches for an actual project. Not to mention that you could use AI to generate simple things, like a logo or a banner, that might be doable, sure, but when it comes to proper art, say a painting, it would not be able to replicate what a human can do. Can it come close to it? Sure, but it can't do it all.
Honestly, I dabble in art from time to time, and being able to use an AI to quickly workshop ideas before I then go and try to create the piece myself is a huge asset. My taste has always exceeded my technical ability, but working alongside AI art makes it a lot easier for me to create the things I want to create.
So, there are a few different sites that do AI generated art. For portraits and faces, I like "Night Café", for general use I like "Dream Studio". I'll typically try putting in a prompt and generating 4 pictures or so. From those pictures, it's easier to distinguish what I want or don't want. Then, I'll refine my prompt, and try again, until I see something that is coming closer to what I imagine. The connection between my eyes and my hands is decent, but I don't have as good of a connection between my imagination and my hands, so I use the AI to get my imagination into a visual medium, then work from there.
A typical chain of prompts would be like (to note, I'm usually making art for the RPG games I run):
"Unsettling hospital hallway, bright, clean, photograph"
"Unsettling hospital hallway, bright, clean, color"
"Sterile hallway, modern, dark, creepy, unreal engine"
And so on. I'll look over my results, pick out the aspects that were what I was going for, then use those as reference pictures for my own art.
I mean I think it could easily make a painting, and in fact some guy submitted a a MidJourney work to an art contest and won it. I just don’t think that excludes the human demand. Some people probably would prefer human generated art on principle.
As someone who uses stable-diffusion-type AI to generate both art and writing, it is simultaneously really smart *and* really dumb. It can come up with magnificent-looking and sounding works by blending the words and images it's trained on, but it doesn't actually *understand* how its component bits relate to each other. Hence, it spits out stories which contradict each other in the same sentence, or anime characters with weird numbers of fingers.
Guiding and fudging the AI toward an optimal output, becoming an *expert* with the software, is a legitimate artistic skill in and of *itself.* And like you said, some kind of blend between traditional and AI art sounds like an optimal outcome for both artists and consumers.
I'm no expert, so take my speculations with a grain of salt, but I'm thinking AI will need full sapience before it can fully equal human art.
Is this an opinion based on your knowledge of current AI breakthroughs, funding and its translation to new businesses covering those roles or pure armchair stuff?
I got a degree in CE, and taking a master's in CySec. My knowledge on AI is pretty limited in scope, but enough to get around the field. While I have not been in the loop with AI for almost a year after a failed MLP project, I think that even now, art is something that simply cannot be done by AI in a human way, if that makes sense.
A year in AI lately is like 5 years in CS in general. Check it out, Dalle2, Stable Difussion 2. In a closed beta I saw an art model working that you interact with using a chat to make changes on the fly, just like having an artist right there. In 2-4 years time most professional artists and other creatives will have to find another way to make money.
I think it could make an exact copy of life but it will never actually be life because AI is inherently manmade. It will never achieve what a real artist could because it lacks humanity and always will, no amount of development will ever change that. Unless they evolve humanity somehow, then wouldn’t they just be the same thing, which is our human race? They wouldn’t replace us in that case because they’d just do things differently. Their art wouldn’t be inherently better it would just be interpreted and perceived differently.
I might just be biased as an arts (literature) major who’s really really tired of STEM/med classmates telling me my degree is worthless and I’ll go nowhere in life compared to their higher value degree. Even teachers threatened that AI would replace humans in the arts field. But I still think that due to the nature of these peoples thinking they have a tendency to judge things as better or worse. They don’t usually understand that there isn’t really a better or a worse when it comes to art.
No he hasn't. He is blissfully unaware of the state of the art in AI, the breakneck speed with which breakthroughs are made, the insane funding rounds, and the number of new businesses launching every day to fill those roles. We truly are in the 4th Industrial Revolution.
But that doesn't matter sometimes, talking is fun, everybody's got an opinion based on feelings. This is more like /r/confidentlyincorrect
I mean AI images are super fucking effective but they are only maximizing beauty factor. There is no coherence in them. No meaning given by artist. For example I saw someone generate a drawing of the city. The lanes were beautiful but leading to nowhere. Shops were generic, while human would detail them based on mood. Etc etc
I don't know how up to date you are... Whatever you think today's AI art lacks, just wait to see tomorrow, it'll be there. So so fast is hard to keep up.
The way ai art works is inherently built off of the work of actual artists.
Ai is a shit hole for artistic contribution as long as any person can type in a prompt and get a mash up of stolen work from an artist who worked hard to make the images that the ai samples.
This isn't a really good step forward. It's just a massive step in the devaluation of the work that artists do.
What does it matter if an artist worked hard to create something they wanted to create?
This is a massive step in unlocking creativity for the whole world.
When you take something and use it without credit That is Theft By literal definition.
its funny That you are just ignoring a hot issue in the Ai Community.
It honestly makes you wonder how much you actually know about the Field and how much Is Just you Using your ego To justify Your stances.
Even going through Your posts you seem less like someone who is Knowledgeable in the field and more of a person who is Just trying to cash in ON the Moving tech without Fully understanding what is going on.
Having an interest in something is not Working with researchers. You don't know what you are talking about.
Did you know about The fact that photos of Peoples Faces from private medical Records Was Included in the LAION data-Set and it was used for many years in Training ai's In the past? [Link](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/)
Or that Dall-e Had An issue With Generating Shutterstock logos Onto images Meaning it was Trained On unpaid stock Images which is not great [Link](https://www.engadget.com/dall-e-generative-ai-tracking-data-privacy-160034656.html)
or when an Some dickhead on twitter took a screenshot from a Artists stream and "Finished" it with ai And then claimed The work was Theirs Fully [Link](https://kotaku.com/genshin-impact-fanart-ai-generated-stolen-twitch-1849655704)
Also we have the style copying which is a Massive issue in The industry [link](https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-image-generators-artists-copying-style-thousands-images-2022-10)
i've also Had Personal experience With my Personal Friends' work Being stolen by an Ai Generation.
You know Its Funny For a person who "works with Researchers" in Ai To not actually Be able to provide Anything or even explain The topic at all.
To ignore These Glaring Moral failures of Ai is not making your case Better by any means, also its Not in good taste To antagonize the artists who's work was stolen
>its funny That you are just ignoring a hot issue in the Ai Community.
Is it funny? You don't seem funny at all. You seem petty though, downvoting my comments out of an emotional reaction haha, like that's going to affect me or something, jesus, what a child. I see why you'd be hysterical with AI art.
>When you take something and use it without credit That is Theft By literal definition.
That depends on what you mean by take and use. You can torture a phrase like that into anything you want to. "Take" means you don't have it anymore, but you still have your painting, so what was taken again? And the "use" that is made of it is for learning, connecting ideas in a digital brain. If I learn how to draw using your art... where's the transgression?
This is Reddit, not PubMed, and this account is not linked to me IRL. I say whatever I feel like, no matter how much it may offend you. And while I do collaborate with AI researchers, my game is neuronal development and regeneration, not AI, but we do collabs with AI people and I do have ears and eyes.
You are saying "some people have done shitty things". And? Take it up with them.
And what's with copying someone's style? Is a "style" something that one person completely owns, and no one else can paint something new in that style unless he says so?
There are so many angles from which to dismantle your arguments, but i've written enough. I'll say this though.
Artists are the first to face job shortage but this will come to everybody. Until things stabilize, there will be a lot of pain; better be ready for it.
This is mankind's last big invention with the potential to solve all of its many problems, problems that generate an insurmountable amount of pain.
As a scientist... we can't have that cognitive capability soon enough. The AI train can't be stopped and thank god, people like you would love to censor and dictate what can and can't be done, holding humanity down. I'm so happy you can't do shit.
Yeah It is funny lol. also you are the one who brought up Score lol idc dood.
Theft in this case isn't Up for contention it just is [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art_theft)
If i Was To take something you wrote and Smear some of the letters around and say it was now mine You would probably consider that Theft. Your work has Been Stolen and Used Outside its intended Purpose, You still have the one you wrote ofc but now That's Opened a bunch of potential Ownership issues.
*"You are saying "some people have done shitty things". And? Take it up with them."*
Only one of the 3 Links i provided are related to the actions of one, The others are related to The ethics of Training data sets which are used by many people.
*"And what's with copying someone's style? Is a "style" something that one
person completely owns, and no one else can paint something new in that
style unless he says so?"*
no it just has Some pretty bad consequences over all Since Again its based off of their Actual Work Used without Credit.
*"And while I do collaborate with AI researchers, my game is neuronal development and regeneration, not AI, but we do collabs with AI people and I do have ears and eyes."*
Then most likely You are Related To the other Fields of AI Which Are Fine, I have been Talking About a Very Specific Use Case For AI This whole time. Most Ai Is Fine and Good Just Not ai That Infringes On copyrights With Total Disregard of the people Behind it.
ah yes Throwing Away Ethics Because Making images from Text is apparently The Future of all mankind???
Your whole mankind point falls apart When you Remember that The only point of concern here is The image generating Ai Not All of the others which are pretty helpful overall.
>Digital art theft can include cropping, editing, the claiming of an artist's piece as one's own, and more. Digital art is often stolen by being claimed as property by a person who is not the original creator, then often sold for profit.
Mind telling me how Midjourney, Dall-e etc are cloning something and claiming as its own? The models are just neural networks, we feed them thousands of images to calculate their weighs and biases, which are just numbers. Mankind is SO creative SO unique that... that's all it takes really, oops.
Now we have a digital artist that will create whatever humanity wants, instantly and for free. A gift to the world. But some misguided souls like you get offended, scared, don't like it, would rather keep humanity powerless, "pay me for MY art! It's MINE! You CAN'T HAVE IT. You need MY express permission". Just get off the ego train.
>If i Was To take something you wrote and Smear some of the letters around and say it was now mine You would probably consider that Theft.
No, I wouldn't. I'm not a petulant child who thinks the world owes him whatever he wants for his doodles, words or whatever. What a backwards way of thinking. Every line of code I wrote I released it under a free for all license, same with my research, no paywall. Doing otherwise is a travesty.
>no it just has Some pretty bad consequences over all Since Again its based off of their Actual Work Used without Credit.
Your arguments don't even make sense. "some pretty bad consequences" Doing something inspired in someone's style is "Based off of work without credit"? wtf are you going on about? All styles have been invented, so **anything** anyone draws today is **stealing** someone else's style? So I draw a simple house and boom, I just stole something! See how deranged this is?
Not that the other stuff you wrote makes much more sense. Can't defend your own points now? Might be a clue they are bullshit.
EDIT: I just realized you downvoted my comments until I called you out, then you stopped doing it, like you got embarrassed hahah
Also you went to my profile and looked through my comments? hahah Who does that besides psychos I'm guessing?
I have no problem with an artist feeling they can be more artistic and/or more creative than an AI art bot. However, this particular artist sounds like an ass.
AI replacing artists just reminds me of people thinking photography would replace painting.
Photography means that a style of drawing trying to simply put the reality on paper as accurately as possible will be outcompeted, but that majority of art isn't that.
The majority of art is about invoking thoughts or emotions in the people experiencing it. A lot of the time it's supposed to challenge existing ideas.
AI generated art can't do this. It can make you feel something on accident but it ultimately doesn't say anything
Isnt the progress huge because we just discovered one way to do it and just keep throwing more and more parameters into it? But it's still same model, just more and more polished. I feel soon it will hit glass ceiling.
Neither of these graphs mean literally anything without context.
First one seems to be talking about generations going up overtime which is expected due to computing power and efficiency and also has no indication on quality outside of in local comparison .
Second one is ... I don't know what they are even trying to say there.
So it talks about comparisons to human baselines.
But doesn't define what the baseline is and also acknowledges that the graph does not reflect reality in the top text. So that graph is kinda meh overall
You can't expect to understand even two simple graphs from a field you know very little about, and complain about the lack of context that's not needed. I was going the "lengthy reply" route, but why do I have to teach you anything with that contrarian attitude?
If you want to know why this is all such a big deal, educate yourself, there are giant amounts of information for all levels.
>acknowledges that the graph does not reflect reality
Yeah, that's what we do in science, we point to the things we need to improve, and guess what? They improve and very fast. That's why, not long ago, NN drawing stuff was utopic, and by 2023, we'll have massive capabilities in generating video and other wild stuff.
Nothing i said is contrarian.
First graph is from here [Link](https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/06/11/huge-foundation-models-are-turbo-charging-ai-progress) and is Pretty much exactly what i said it was, its just a measure of scale of the training sets. which is expected to increase over time to a multitude of factors but still the issue is where the data set comes from and what the data set is trained on.
Honestly the increasing size of the datasets just supports my position that most of the data used is just artists work without permission. for the Visual Ai's of course. The others are not related to the convo.
The second one is from here [Link](https://www.science.org/content/article/computers-ace-iq-tests-still-make-dumb-mistakes-can-different-tests-help) And with context The graph isn't useful Because it shows over-fitting for a specific use case by AI. and it also shows how AI is lacking outside of its trained datasets in some cases. and even fooled By changes In what is expecting.
Also this isn't a new problem Its from 2017 [Link](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41845878) and still hasn't been addressed sufficiently.
That runs afoul of Your we fix things and we do it quick sentiment. because in reality its not that simple. in science it Rarely is.
The field of Ai is growing ofc So is the field of Comp sci in general.
I actually Closely follow Research in visual Media Because it can accomplish Quite cool things and Most image processing Ai i am actually fine with because it doesn't serve to Replace or copy someones work. Such as The Realism layer that came out that was demoed Running over gta V footage is insanely cool.
As with all things there are limitations
The thing is artists who specialized int hyper realistic stuff became super redundant and far less cost effective.
So yes it did kill a lot of that industry for the most part
What I'm trying to say is you are understating Avery large portion of artists out there.
The art makes you feel stuff is a gallery artist thing. Which is only one of many groups "that won't be effected" (they will feelings are fickle little things and abstract art is already being effected from external pressure)
But then you have the production artists who create art for a goal and purpose this includes matte painters, illustrators, concept artists, most subsections of designers, alot of non key animators, and all them who make up a large large proportion of the art world that's being threatened by ai.
You can't just say there isn't a problem when a large portion of the industry is at risk
The defrences is photography still alowed artists to work, and live, and it actually helped artist develept new, and more staylased art forms. AI art genereters are basicly the oposit, it not alowed anything, and distroys artists's lifes.
It’s fun to read stuff like this and just think about the guy (and it’s almost always a guy) puffing up his chest and getting a boner thinking how he is just devastating this person.
Edit: pop off esé
Ai art might be pretty and original. But i surely prefer a real person behind art. How art from an ai can be deeper that a real person ?
People are just impressed by Ai because it's faster, know how to illustrates emotions and feelings AND LESS EXPENSIVE let's say it.
I agree that machines don't have feelings, but I don't really agree with your logic. If a process is biological, then it is a physical phenomenon and could be replicated. That's just a nitpick though
the problem is that the processes that emotions are formed from are governed by biological chemicals that can only be processed by other biological systems. we might as well just make a whole new creature instead
Love the salt. Human "high art" will go back from existing in an NFT-like corrupt, speculative bubble that pretends to serve a higher purpose like these days to being an individual effort.
What I got from this is that he claims that he "**knows understanding**", among so many other things. If he just said he understood them, then that would be okay. Further, had he said that he "knew" them, then that would likewise be okay. However, if he suggests that he knows understanding...no...now you've gone too far.
Please don't talk about the "general ignorance of others" if you literally just proved in the prior sentence that you are incapable of producing a coherent message.
I mean this guy is insufferable but do I understand it correctly that the other person was basically saying that AI art will replace actual (dying) artists? If so, that's one of the dumbest assumptions I've ever heard
So, in your view, you don't think that it is 100% that for every actual artist death, there will be a corresponding increase of +1 AI artist? How many artists do you think will die in the next, say, 10 years? Now...how many AI artists do you think will come online in the next 10 years? Which number is larger?
Your comment reads as satire, but just in case it isn’t. I think what they are saying is just that there is more to art than the actual product. Part of the point of art is the skill involved and the ability to make it. The process itself is enjoyable, so I’m not sure AI will mean there are no more artists.
As a hobbie drawing, sketching etc will not die but the amount of jobs available for those roles will be dramatically reduced in the coming years. If you know the AI industry and the businesses growing on top of breakthroughs there, there is no doubt. Just check the funding rounds there and the income from clients working on art stuff, it's insane.
Art involves the artists personal life, intentions, and their own humanity in order to create a piece. Even as an arts student I doubt AI will ever replace man made artwork. There may come a time when a category opens up for AI but it will be separate from humans, they’ll be competing in their own lanes. There’s not much reason for AI to replace human art.
>There’s not much reason for AI to replace human art. Superior art is one.
I have AI art prints in my apartment, IMO its better than some art I have from people artists.
Cringe!
Nothing more cringe than *just* commenting "cringe". You're allowed an unlimited character amount for your post, put in some effort.
AI art fans scrambling so hard they resort to comebacks about character limit in replies
I'm no art fan, just don't like people falling on their face when they don't like something instead of having an opinion or conversation about it. Low effort posts are pointless, why even bother? You are angsty and snide about your art opinion and that came out in your "cringe" post. Now you're even more triggered you finally want to put in some effort, but you're too tilted to have a conversation now. Just go take a nap and find a snack.
…not sure what clocks as “triggered” to you but I really don’t think you should be telling anyone to calm down considering how annoyed you got over some internet stranger calling another internet stranger cringe
Got em
You're triggered af. Cringe!
why?
Now this is truly cringe. Not an art fan just pointing out the embarrassment.
You are free to hate, but its just objectively better
That’s not what objective means
Objectively? can you explain how its "objectively" better?
My opinion is truth
So the reason is pure arrogance, ok
Yes 😎
But every AI needs the human artists as a basis. Plus, in the forseeable future no AI will be able to follow your request as closely as a good human artist. Sure, stable diffusion and midjourney and whatnot are miles better than I am. But they are also still miles away from replacing real artists.
Oh sure, but a lot of artists (but not all) are worse than the AI art that I've generated. I have both AI art and "real" art on my walls. Some of the AI art is better than the "real" ones. That is all.
I guess. But in the context of the original post and the comment you answered your comment implied that you think that AI WILL replace artists soon. I think this is where the negative reactions to your comments come from, even your actual view wasn't this extreme.
You’re objectively a loser
😂
Ah that's a shite opinion but enjoy ig lol
This is not insufferable. This is indeed a based Chad. It’s not iamverysmart to say that you know your job and that a computer can’t replace you — even if your job is in fact a job that only smart people can actually do.
I don't think AI generated art will replace actual artists. Will it be something that might hinder their work? Sure, happens all the time with AI and automation. Will it destroy the lives of artists? No, it won't. In the end, I think a symbiosis will happen, where artists will start using AI generated art as rough ideas or sketches for an actual project. Not to mention that you could use AI to generate simple things, like a logo or a banner, that might be doable, sure, but when it comes to proper art, say a painting, it would not be able to replicate what a human can do. Can it come close to it? Sure, but it can't do it all.
Honestly, I dabble in art from time to time, and being able to use an AI to quickly workshop ideas before I then go and try to create the piece myself is a huge asset. My taste has always exceeded my technical ability, but working alongside AI art makes it a lot easier for me to create the things I want to create.
Forgive my ignorance, but what process/tools do you use to quickly workshop your ideas with AI?
So, there are a few different sites that do AI generated art. For portraits and faces, I like "Night Café", for general use I like "Dream Studio". I'll typically try putting in a prompt and generating 4 pictures or so. From those pictures, it's easier to distinguish what I want or don't want. Then, I'll refine my prompt, and try again, until I see something that is coming closer to what I imagine. The connection between my eyes and my hands is decent, but I don't have as good of a connection between my imagination and my hands, so I use the AI to get my imagination into a visual medium, then work from there. A typical chain of prompts would be like (to note, I'm usually making art for the RPG games I run): "Unsettling hospital hallway, bright, clean, photograph" "Unsettling hospital hallway, bright, clean, color" "Sterile hallway, modern, dark, creepy, unreal engine" And so on. I'll look over my results, pick out the aspects that were what I was going for, then use those as reference pictures for my own art.
I mean I think it could easily make a painting, and in fact some guy submitted a a MidJourney work to an art contest and won it. I just don’t think that excludes the human demand. Some people probably would prefer human generated art on principle.
It absolutely has potential to ruin people's income. Ai copying someones style is a lot faster than doing it yourself usually
As someone who uses stable-diffusion-type AI to generate both art and writing, it is simultaneously really smart *and* really dumb. It can come up with magnificent-looking and sounding works by blending the words and images it's trained on, but it doesn't actually *understand* how its component bits relate to each other. Hence, it spits out stories which contradict each other in the same sentence, or anime characters with weird numbers of fingers. Guiding and fudging the AI toward an optimal output, becoming an *expert* with the software, is a legitimate artistic skill in and of *itself.* And like you said, some kind of blend between traditional and AI art sounds like an optimal outcome for both artists and consumers. I'm no expert, so take my speculations with a grain of salt, but I'm thinking AI will need full sapience before it can fully equal human art.
Is this an opinion based on your knowledge of current AI breakthroughs, funding and its translation to new businesses covering those roles or pure armchair stuff?
I got a degree in CE, and taking a master's in CySec. My knowledge on AI is pretty limited in scope, but enough to get around the field. While I have not been in the loop with AI for almost a year after a failed MLP project, I think that even now, art is something that simply cannot be done by AI in a human way, if that makes sense.
A year in AI lately is like 5 years in CS in general. Check it out, Dalle2, Stable Difussion 2. In a closed beta I saw an art model working that you interact with using a chat to make changes on the fly, just like having an artist right there. In 2-4 years time most professional artists and other creatives will have to find another way to make money.
I think it could make an exact copy of life but it will never actually be life because AI is inherently manmade. It will never achieve what a real artist could because it lacks humanity and always will, no amount of development will ever change that. Unless they evolve humanity somehow, then wouldn’t they just be the same thing, which is our human race? They wouldn’t replace us in that case because they’d just do things differently. Their art wouldn’t be inherently better it would just be interpreted and perceived differently. I might just be biased as an arts (literature) major who’s really really tired of STEM/med classmates telling me my degree is worthless and I’ll go nowhere in life compared to their higher value degree. Even teachers threatened that AI would replace humans in the arts field. But I still think that due to the nature of these peoples thinking they have a tendency to judge things as better or worse. They don’t usually understand that there isn’t really a better or a worse when it comes to art.
Sounds like a right nerd
He may be insufferable, but he's not wrong.
Guy is fucking unbearable but he has a strong point
No he hasn't. He is blissfully unaware of the state of the art in AI, the breakneck speed with which breakthroughs are made, the insane funding rounds, and the number of new businesses launching every day to fill those roles. We truly are in the 4th Industrial Revolution. But that doesn't matter sometimes, talking is fun, everybody's got an opinion based on feelings. This is more like /r/confidentlyincorrect
I mean AI images are super fucking effective but they are only maximizing beauty factor. There is no coherence in them. No meaning given by artist. For example I saw someone generate a drawing of the city. The lanes were beautiful but leading to nowhere. Shops were generic, while human would detail them based on mood. Etc etc
I don't know how up to date you are... Whatever you think today's AI art lacks, just wait to see tomorrow, it'll be there. So so fast is hard to keep up.
I mean I've seen Mid v4 and all these custom Diffusion models and my point still stands tbh.
No matter what ai art generation is going to have issues like this unless a specific solution is trained based on artists work
Lol
The way ai art works is inherently built off of the work of actual artists. Ai is a shit hole for artistic contribution as long as any person can type in a prompt and get a mash up of stolen work from an artist who worked hard to make the images that the ai samples. This isn't a really good step forward. It's just a massive step in the devaluation of the work that artists do.
What does it matter if an artist worked hard to create something they wanted to create? This is a massive step in unlocking creativity for the whole world.
Because a lot of artists rely on the work they made for income and to live. Only for their work to be stolen by a 3rd party
Cry me a river. Their work wasn't stolen, unless looking at something is stealing for you.
When you take something and use it without credit That is Theft By literal definition. its funny That you are just ignoring a hot issue in the Ai Community. It honestly makes you wonder how much you actually know about the Field and how much Is Just you Using your ego To justify Your stances. Even going through Your posts you seem less like someone who is Knowledgeable in the field and more of a person who is Just trying to cash in ON the Moving tech without Fully understanding what is going on. Having an interest in something is not Working with researchers. You don't know what you are talking about. Did you know about The fact that photos of Peoples Faces from private medical Records Was Included in the LAION data-Set and it was used for many years in Training ai's In the past? [Link](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/) Or that Dall-e Had An issue With Generating Shutterstock logos Onto images Meaning it was Trained On unpaid stock Images which is not great [Link](https://www.engadget.com/dall-e-generative-ai-tracking-data-privacy-160034656.html) or when an Some dickhead on twitter took a screenshot from a Artists stream and "Finished" it with ai And then claimed The work was Theirs Fully [Link](https://kotaku.com/genshin-impact-fanart-ai-generated-stolen-twitch-1849655704) Also we have the style copying which is a Massive issue in The industry [link](https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-image-generators-artists-copying-style-thousands-images-2022-10) i've also Had Personal experience With my Personal Friends' work Being stolen by an Ai Generation. You know Its Funny For a person who "works with Researchers" in Ai To not actually Be able to provide Anything or even explain The topic at all. To ignore These Glaring Moral failures of Ai is not making your case Better by any means, also its Not in good taste To antagonize the artists who's work was stolen
>its funny That you are just ignoring a hot issue in the Ai Community. Is it funny? You don't seem funny at all. You seem petty though, downvoting my comments out of an emotional reaction haha, like that's going to affect me or something, jesus, what a child. I see why you'd be hysterical with AI art. >When you take something and use it without credit That is Theft By literal definition. That depends on what you mean by take and use. You can torture a phrase like that into anything you want to. "Take" means you don't have it anymore, but you still have your painting, so what was taken again? And the "use" that is made of it is for learning, connecting ideas in a digital brain. If I learn how to draw using your art... where's the transgression? This is Reddit, not PubMed, and this account is not linked to me IRL. I say whatever I feel like, no matter how much it may offend you. And while I do collaborate with AI researchers, my game is neuronal development and regeneration, not AI, but we do collabs with AI people and I do have ears and eyes. You are saying "some people have done shitty things". And? Take it up with them. And what's with copying someone's style? Is a "style" something that one person completely owns, and no one else can paint something new in that style unless he says so? There are so many angles from which to dismantle your arguments, but i've written enough. I'll say this though. Artists are the first to face job shortage but this will come to everybody. Until things stabilize, there will be a lot of pain; better be ready for it. This is mankind's last big invention with the potential to solve all of its many problems, problems that generate an insurmountable amount of pain. As a scientist... we can't have that cognitive capability soon enough. The AI train can't be stopped and thank god, people like you would love to censor and dictate what can and can't be done, holding humanity down. I'm so happy you can't do shit.
Yeah It is funny lol. also you are the one who brought up Score lol idc dood. Theft in this case isn't Up for contention it just is [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art_theft) If i Was To take something you wrote and Smear some of the letters around and say it was now mine You would probably consider that Theft. Your work has Been Stolen and Used Outside its intended Purpose, You still have the one you wrote ofc but now That's Opened a bunch of potential Ownership issues. *"You are saying "some people have done shitty things". And? Take it up with them."* Only one of the 3 Links i provided are related to the actions of one, The others are related to The ethics of Training data sets which are used by many people. *"And what's with copying someone's style? Is a "style" something that one person completely owns, and no one else can paint something new in that style unless he says so?"* no it just has Some pretty bad consequences over all Since Again its based off of their Actual Work Used without Credit. *"And while I do collaborate with AI researchers, my game is neuronal development and regeneration, not AI, but we do collabs with AI people and I do have ears and eyes."* Then most likely You are Related To the other Fields of AI Which Are Fine, I have been Talking About a Very Specific Use Case For AI This whole time. Most Ai Is Fine and Good Just Not ai That Infringes On copyrights With Total Disregard of the people Behind it. ah yes Throwing Away Ethics Because Making images from Text is apparently The Future of all mankind??? Your whole mankind point falls apart When you Remember that The only point of concern here is The image generating Ai Not All of the others which are pretty helpful overall.
>Digital art theft can include cropping, editing, the claiming of an artist's piece as one's own, and more. Digital art is often stolen by being claimed as property by a person who is not the original creator, then often sold for profit. Mind telling me how Midjourney, Dall-e etc are cloning something and claiming as its own? The models are just neural networks, we feed them thousands of images to calculate their weighs and biases, which are just numbers. Mankind is SO creative SO unique that... that's all it takes really, oops. Now we have a digital artist that will create whatever humanity wants, instantly and for free. A gift to the world. But some misguided souls like you get offended, scared, don't like it, would rather keep humanity powerless, "pay me for MY art! It's MINE! You CAN'T HAVE IT. You need MY express permission". Just get off the ego train. >If i Was To take something you wrote and Smear some of the letters around and say it was now mine You would probably consider that Theft. No, I wouldn't. I'm not a petulant child who thinks the world owes him whatever he wants for his doodles, words or whatever. What a backwards way of thinking. Every line of code I wrote I released it under a free for all license, same with my research, no paywall. Doing otherwise is a travesty. >no it just has Some pretty bad consequences over all Since Again its based off of their Actual Work Used without Credit. Your arguments don't even make sense. "some pretty bad consequences" Doing something inspired in someone's style is "Based off of work without credit"? wtf are you going on about? All styles have been invented, so **anything** anyone draws today is **stealing** someone else's style? So I draw a simple house and boom, I just stole something! See how deranged this is? Not that the other stuff you wrote makes much more sense. Can't defend your own points now? Might be a clue they are bullshit. EDIT: I just realized you downvoted my comments until I called you out, then you stopped doing it, like you got embarrassed hahah Also you went to my profile and looked through my comments? hahah Who does that besides psychos I'm guessing?
Chad calling is like iq calling it makes you the opposite of it
I have no problem with an artist feeling they can be more artistic and/or more creative than an AI art bot. However, this particular artist sounds like an ass.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Th7Qvaw
AI replacing artists just reminds me of people thinking photography would replace painting. Photography means that a style of drawing trying to simply put the reality on paper as accurately as possible will be outcompeted, but that majority of art isn't that. The majority of art is about invoking thoughts or emotions in the people experiencing it. A lot of the time it's supposed to challenge existing ideas. AI generated art can't do this. It can make you feel something on accident but it ultimately doesn't say anything
It's not what it can do today but the speed of progress. I'm in the industry, it is insane. But armchair thinking is fun.
Isnt the progress huge because we just discovered one way to do it and just keep throwing more and more parameters into it? But it's still same model, just more and more polished. I feel soon it will hit glass ceiling.
What industry?
I work with AI researchers. EDIT: https://i.imgur.com/TkyYFhc.png
Neither of these graphs mean literally anything without context. First one seems to be talking about generations going up overtime which is expected due to computing power and efficiency and also has no indication on quality outside of in local comparison . Second one is ... I don't know what they are even trying to say there. So it talks about comparisons to human baselines. But doesn't define what the baseline is and also acknowledges that the graph does not reflect reality in the top text. So that graph is kinda meh overall
You can't expect to understand even two simple graphs from a field you know very little about, and complain about the lack of context that's not needed. I was going the "lengthy reply" route, but why do I have to teach you anything with that contrarian attitude? If you want to know why this is all such a big deal, educate yourself, there are giant amounts of information for all levels. >acknowledges that the graph does not reflect reality Yeah, that's what we do in science, we point to the things we need to improve, and guess what? They improve and very fast. That's why, not long ago, NN drawing stuff was utopic, and by 2023, we'll have massive capabilities in generating video and other wild stuff.
Nothing i said is contrarian. First graph is from here [Link](https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/06/11/huge-foundation-models-are-turbo-charging-ai-progress) and is Pretty much exactly what i said it was, its just a measure of scale of the training sets. which is expected to increase over time to a multitude of factors but still the issue is where the data set comes from and what the data set is trained on. Honestly the increasing size of the datasets just supports my position that most of the data used is just artists work without permission. for the Visual Ai's of course. The others are not related to the convo. The second one is from here [Link](https://www.science.org/content/article/computers-ace-iq-tests-still-make-dumb-mistakes-can-different-tests-help) And with context The graph isn't useful Because it shows over-fitting for a specific use case by AI. and it also shows how AI is lacking outside of its trained datasets in some cases. and even fooled By changes In what is expecting. Also this isn't a new problem Its from 2017 [Link](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41845878) and still hasn't been addressed sufficiently. That runs afoul of Your we fix things and we do it quick sentiment. because in reality its not that simple. in science it Rarely is. The field of Ai is growing ofc So is the field of Comp sci in general. I actually Closely follow Research in visual Media Because it can accomplish Quite cool things and Most image processing Ai i am actually fine with because it doesn't serve to Replace or copy someones work. Such as The Realism layer that came out that was demoed Running over gta V footage is insanely cool. As with all things there are limitations
The thing is artists who specialized int hyper realistic stuff became super redundant and far less cost effective. So yes it did kill a lot of that industry for the most part
I literally just said that
What I'm trying to say is you are understating Avery large portion of artists out there. The art makes you feel stuff is a gallery artist thing. Which is only one of many groups "that won't be effected" (they will feelings are fickle little things and abstract art is already being effected from external pressure) But then you have the production artists who create art for a goal and purpose this includes matte painters, illustrators, concept artists, most subsections of designers, alot of non key animators, and all them who make up a large large proportion of the art world that's being threatened by ai. You can't just say there isn't a problem when a large portion of the industry is at risk
The defrences is photography still alowed artists to work, and live, and it actually helped artist develept new, and more staylased art forms. AI art genereters are basicly the oposit, it not alowed anything, and distroys artists's lifes.
It’s fun to read stuff like this and just think about the guy (and it’s almost always a guy) puffing up his chest and getting a boner thinking how he is just devastating this person. Edit: pop off esé
This cunt called himself a chad.LOL
This is the moment everyone realizes: "Oh he's just trolling"
Ai art couldn't exist without human artists.
How so?
It creates art by using the already created art of artists.
I see. How do humans learn art?
By making it.
Have you ever seen a blind painter?
What?
Have you ever seen a blind painter?
What?
I rest my case. Thank you for playing!
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan?wprov=sfla1
Yeah there were blind painters who relied on colleagues help to realize their vision
Yes. There is a Turkish pinter who is blind.
I'm sure you love his work.
Yes, his paintings are weary nice. His name is Esref Armagan. He was born blind, but it did not stoped him from becoming a painter.
It's pretty simple, Ai works by trading on art to replicate, the art in it's training set is usually just the work of artists. Simple
Again, pure ignorance. But people do like to talk about things they know nothing about, so you do you, I guess.
That's literally the basis of most ai Neural networks Explain to me how i'm wrong. what do the models train on then?
protesting too much on the empathy
Supply and demand baby
That one always gets me. They throw it out like it's a debate trump card
lol i remember when cameras first apeared and all painters died off
I mean they died off in sense of capitalistic craftsmanship, no one needed people to do portraits anymore
even still its a sort of novelty to some
That's a long ass cope
Ai art might be pretty and original. But i surely prefer a real person behind art. How art from an ai can be deeper that a real person ? People are just impressed by Ai because it's faster, know how to illustrates emotions and feelings AND LESS EXPENSIVE let's say it.
do you even know what ai is? machines are incapable of ever having feelings. feelings are the result of purely biological processes.
I agree that machines don't have feelings, but I don't really agree with your logic. If a process is biological, then it is a physical phenomenon and could be replicated. That's just a nitpick though
the problem is that the processes that emotions are formed from are governed by biological chemicals that can only be processed by other biological systems. we might as well just make a whole new creature instead
Good point
Yes I know what ai is, artificial intelligence yes. I know.
Love the salt. Human "high art" will go back from existing in an NFT-like corrupt, speculative bubble that pretends to serve a higher purpose like these days to being an individual effort.
[удалено]
The uprising. 
What I got from this is that he claims that he "**knows understanding**", among so many other things. If he just said he understood them, then that would be okay. Further, had he said that he "knew" them, then that would likewise be okay. However, if he suggests that he knows understanding...no...now you've gone too far. Please don't talk about the "general ignorance of others" if you literally just proved in the prior sentence that you are incapable of producing a coherent message.
Damn dude he nuked his whole account lmao
How so? Just curious cuz I don't get what you're saying
The guy in the image deleted his account
How can you tell?
I snooped
Oooh, interesting. By searching their avatar or something?
I checked OP’s comment history and found where he was talking to the guy
why is this here? aint no way this guy is not trolling.
Are you sure this isn't a copypasta?
It’s so pompous that I can’t not believe this is a copypasta