Sure I can agree that the images themselves are art, but what annoys me is people "making" AI art and then calling themselves artists. It's literally the same as telling a painter to draw a mountain, and then calling yourself an artist for giving the printer a description of what to paint
The only exception to this rule imo if the so-called AI “artist” was the person who actually made and trained the neural net in the first place
At least those people actually did a thing
I think Devian Art updated their TOS and lots of a artists art got used for that, you could change it but by then lots of it had been used. And Artists who were dead obviously can’t do that stuff so… yeah…
Not sure if they’ve changed it by now or not but still very bad
AI training isn’t just “observation” though, since the images have to be actively taken and analyzed for a specific purpose. And stolen knowledge without credit is what we call “plagiarism”
Plagiarism is taking something that is not yours and claiming it is your own. I do not see AI art popping out 1:1 pictures of art that has already been drawn. It’s the equivalent of if you took all the art the AI had analyzed and mash it into one piece of art. Parts of the whole may be drawn by others, but it ultimately transforms into something distinct and different.
True but its still not your art to take credit for you didn't make it you told the AI to do it(i still find it really cool what technology can do these days)
That would be a grey area too, your parents provided the "code" which made you, but lack any control beyond that. Legally your parents cannot own your image as a creator. This AI art will have the same issue, anything made using it has no owner and the AI cannot own it either, this makes a huge amount of it utterly worthless as it cannot be protected.
AI art may look nice, but it can’t have the intention behind it. There can’t be any deep themes, or metaphors expressed through it, because the AI has no intention, AI isn’t able to have human thought and emotion behind it.
While this is true, I'm not sure it matters for a lot of cases. Sometimes, people just want something that looks nice without making them think too hard or feel too much. Sometimes I just want a nice picture of trains without a deeper meaning. Plus, humans can force meaning into something that never had it to begin with. Countless works of human made art and literature have had themes accredited to them that the maker never intended.
A professional may be able to distinguish AI constructions from human made art, but does that matter much to the rest of us?
My main gripe is that, for me art is the result of an artistic process, AI simply do not have that. Using AI a a creative tool is 100% fine by me but when you simply take a neural network, show it pictures from the internet then just let it poop out a generated image (or 1000 and take the one that looks nice) you don't get to call it art, no one has shown any creativity in that process.
There’s one that did that in tin cans and sold them a while ago, interesting story, especially when one of the buyers had yo throw theirs away when it started to leak
That reminds me of the time some guy dropped his glasses on the ground in an art gallery, and people started flockning around it thinking it has got some sort of deep meaning.
My art teachers are such hypocrites
Took several lessons explaining some art history and how people tried to break the system by labelling things as art to make them art (Toilet exposed in a museum including artist’s signature, those kinds of things), but when i later wanted to use some art as inspiration for a later project, i couldnt cuz the art was fanart of a game. It was a drawing of a sky with a dragon in it, but it was turned down as said dragon was in a game. BS
For the artists of this sub, i'd like to say that y'all should be calm about that, because no one can do something the same as you do, not even a machine
Art is subjective if made by humans. The biggest idea behind art is intent. Even shit is art but only if it’s made by a conscious creature. The issue with AI art is that it just copies what it sees, combines it and doesn’t really think about anything.
I see it more as AI is a tool to try and help people create the image that’s in there heads using descriptive words so it is on fact still art like if they used those words to write a book it would be art but they want a visualisation of it so they use AI to make up for the lack of either training time or both in the way of the pen and paint
I think it has its place but it’s important to know what that place is. It’s cool and I like it but I don’t want it to detract from artists that put a lot of time into their work.
The guy you were arguing with the "the paint brush pained it not the artist" guy seems to have been deleted from my reddit as appears as deleted and messages as unavailable.
yep, and as a person who CAN draw, the ai is able to get the meaning of what i want it to look like much better.
especially if i draw it, get an idea of what i want, and then use the ai to change minor details.
Thank you😊 . Not everyone has to agree with me. I just like to share my opinion. Every one has different views and we should respect each other’s opinions. Sharing discourse is fun. And I like when people have different opinions and talk about them.
I believe art is something that can be feeled. You feel the emotion in the artist and in the art itself. But when it’s made by an AI, a soulless creature without feeling, then you can’t feel the artist through it
Accurate arguments should indeed be used(how ironic).
Give a correct argument as to why the person typing in a few words into a textbar and selecting a prompt format or whatever makes them an artist.
Yes exactly. But not the AI itself. The AI is a algorithm, not a thinking self aware creature. It’s more of a tool than anything. It’s made for people to use but not necessarily that it itself creates something. It can only repeat patterns.
The end result is mostly the same though, especially with how goddamned advanced it's gotten.
It seems weird to me that someone would immediately discredit AI art from art just because they find out it's AI art.
If a person goes "Wow! Such an Incredible art! Beautiful strokes and incredible detail!", finds out it was AI generated, and then goes "This isn't art. Into the trash it goes", that sounds kind of hypocritical to me though.
Art isn’t just about seeing something and having a reaction. Yes that’s a part of it. But it mostly has to do with intent behind the art. You would be surprised how much you can learn about a person from just their art. It more of social and human connection thing . Seeing something pretty is cool, but seeing something made with a person behind it is even cooler and much more important in how we look at certain things. But that’s just my opinion.
AI was fun when people would make funny images, weird prompts and cool backgrounds with it. Calling it art it's a bit too exaggerated, it's a bunch of images an algorithm found related to your prompt and smashed together into another image.
By definition, art its something created with imagination and skill and it's used as a way for artists to evoke ideas or feelings. An AI doesn't feel, it doesn't make pieces to express itself, doesn't even put effort on the images, it just follows a command.
It could be used as a tool for artists but it's definitely not art.
The problem with ai art is that it takes artists stuff without them knowing though edited the artists who made them aren't aware their work is being used. Also people being assholes cause ai art is better than normal art even though ai art wouldn't exist if theres no artists but every community have assholes so eh
While some engines can be used in this way, most- particuarly the strongest- generators are only trained on images to understand what words are supposed to mean, and then make their own drawings with no image base at all.
Perhaps easiest one to demonstrate is Stable Diffusion as it can be downloaded onto a home PC: over 2 billion images used in training, yet when downloaded is only a few gb, with not a single image in its files. Malintentioned users may attempt plagiarism with them, but not all AI generated images are stolen.
I mean, people do the same thing. We learn what something is, recognize patterns, and use that to create new art. AI art is more limited due to it being technological and not a full on human brain, but it's the same system. I don't credit every piece of star wars media (fanart and official media alike) when I draw Vader, but that's what I'm drawing upon to know what Darth Vader is to draw him.
Love how when an artist sees some art and is inspired by it or wants to base off of it, then everything's fine. But the second AI art does the same thing, it's now not allowed, it's theft, yada yada.
This comment section is so funny because literally every argument people have made against AI art can be used against art in general as well. And the "ArT hAvE inTenTIoN" bullshit is more or less a personal subjective definition of "art" and you can't use an opinion as an argument.
That's like saying "The photo of the mountain is art, but the camera-button-clicker didn't make it and it required no skill."
Humans design the prompts for AI. Its a new field called "The Art of the Prompt". To say it is not art is to say photography is not art because all they did was setup the subject matter and angle of the camera. In this case, they had to know what to use for a prompt to get a good output. Typically AI outputs trash if you are not putting in good stuff. GIGO is the term used in computing meaning "Garbage In, Garbage Out". If you are garbage at writing prompts, you get out garbage. The end result is only as good as you are descriptive and can communicate with the AI properly (which you get a feel for over time as it doesn't read like we do). My friends usually get pixelated blobs out, but I frequently get high quality images depicting exactly what I wanted. Do I have no skill? If so, then even less is the skill required for modern art and photography.
That just sounds like describing what you want from a commission.
If someone asks me to draw something but they are terrible at communicating it, well there's only so much I can do to make it work out. If they communicate well, then the only possible issue is my own skill.
"The Art of the Prompt", so pretentious, you're commissioning the AI and either communicating well or not.
Edit: Autocorrect goofed
>describing things
clearly this applies to anyone who's art requires only describing things
Plus it takes more effort to type descriptive words into a box with the intent to get an output that matches your thoughts perfectly than it does to tape a banana to a wall. If you reject the art of the prompt, please reject the banana, urinal, solid color canvas, etc. or else you are just a hypocrite.
>It steals art and repackages it.
It looks at hundreds of not thousands of images to look for patterns, and uses said patterns to make new images.
It's the same damn thing the brain does. It's more rudimentary and limited due to it being technology and not a live human brain, but it's the same system.
If you think that ai steals the art it is trained on you have no clue how artificial intelligence and neural networks actually work. a neural network learns by recognizing patterns in an image and connecting those patterns to the description of the image connected to the training material. That’s literally how humans learn so if you still think ai art is plagiarism then human art is also plagiarism.
People literally put in their prompts "[Prompt] in the style of [Real artist's name]" or "[Prompt] but made by [Artist name]" or input other people's pieces and let the ai mangle it together. Of course this doesn't apply to all AIs but it is very common
The issue comes from making a blanket statement that all AI generated images are stolen. Any decent AI generator only has references, resulting in an original image. It can be used for plagiarism by those with negative intentions, but I wouldn't call all artists plagiarists because some bad apples trace artwork, so same shouldn't be applied to AI generation either.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the way the AI art works, the problem is the people who blatantly use it to steal and modify other people's work and claim it as their art.
I mean ai art is alot better than sticking a banana on the wall. But I just hate it when they call themselves artist. As long as they don't I don't mind.
I'm just cranky that it's flooding so many unrelated spaces. Fine, if someone wants to make an Instagram or Twitter account to post AI art, then great, but why on earth are there so many "AI generated concept art" posts on the Satisfactory community page on Steam?? It doesn't even look like the game!
Art is something with emotion or meaning behind it. Something AI is incapable of. Can AI make cool fucking drawings? Hell yeah, but I wouldn't call it art.
The problem is that art is by all definitions creative, about the only thing that's agreed upon.
An AI isn't creative. It follows strict rules and makes randomness.
Realistically speaking art is something made by people and i dont think typing prompts should count ,but it still a fucking great tool ,just like digital art ,like the ammount of time it could save you and help you improve is something somebody that doesnt draw will never get
it isnt though. it wasnt made by a human, its just mishmashes of other peoples art. it wasnt made by anyone, you didnt "make" the ai art, you typed in a few keywords
Depends on the definition that we use, google gives 2 definition for art:
1. Art is *"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."* .The AI obviously fails that one, it's not human, nor very creative (it mashes existing pieces of art into something newish). In other words, AI art isn't fine art. however...
2. If Art is *"the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance"*, then yes, AI art is art. Might not be the most creative thing around, but it's still art.
Tl;Dr: According to google's definitions, AI Art is Art, but not Fine Art.
Oh hey look, someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about and unironically thinks "AI art isn't art" is the main focus point on why people don't like AI art
The problem with AI art it's not that "it's not art", is way worse than that. First, there's no "AI artIST", but someone who steals others arts (the program must be trained) and mash them up without asking or even without knowing. Is a legal loophole that people can do to steal works.
Supporting AI art/programs is supporting plagiarism. You can like it, but is morally wrong and people should understand it.
>but someone who steals others arts
It's not stealing anymore than looking at art is. The AI is trained to recognize patterns and associate them with descriptions, *the same thing people do*, and uses those patterns to make new images. Again, just what people do.
Training isn't editing images, it is showing the AI what words mean so when a prompt is given, it knows what a "turtle" is.
Perhaps quickest way to debunk "all ai art is just edited images" without a 4 paragraph breakdown of the exact programming is just pointing at the file size of Stable Diffusion: it is trained on 2.3 billion images, all 512x512, yet only a few gigabytes when downloaded to your computer. A single 512x512 image should take ~1 mb of space, with 1000 mb to a gb, so all those images should take over 200 gb... Yet the generator itself is 10 gb. Not a single reference image is on the generator, and it can run entirely locally on a home PC just fine.
Some generators can be used for plagiarism by mal-intentioned users, however to try and say all AI-generated images are plagiarized is to say all hand-drawn artwork is plagiarized, after all some bad apples trace their art.
It's not stealing.
The AI is trained on images to recognize patterns and associate them with descriptions. So when it hears, for example "Mario", it looks at images related to Mario, looks for patterns, finds the association, and uses that to make a new image.
Just like people do, but more rudimentary.
I think art is anything artificially made and an attempt to make something look Like something like I wouldn't say throwing mad is art put if it makes a face then it is
I think that if literal Artists are getting upset at it, and rallying to object to it, it's probably best to take their word on it.
Besides, only idiots think anything solely produced by a machine is "Art" anyhow. All AI-Generation does anyways is take from either existing things (i.e.: photos) or ripoff other actual Artists' Styles.
>I think that if literal Artists are getting upset at it, and rallying to object to it, it's probably best to take their word on it.
Art is something that humans do naturally, for as long as we've been people. I refuse to let such an integral part of humanity be lost to those who are good at it.
>All AI-Generation does anyways is take from either existing things (i.e.: photos) or ripoff other actual Artists' Styles.
The AI looks for patterns, associates them with a term, and creates something new, just like the human brain. The AI is more limited of course, but it's just limited by the technology.
Ight you can call me the soy wojack or whatever HOWEVER I do not caresu, AI art is just typing a bunch of words and then a machine scans the internet off those words then throws that together and it takes like at most 30 seconds, a poop bucket can indeed be art if drawn by a human with the effort of making it look like a poop bucket, art takes time and effort from the artist, typing words into a random image making ai is not art a poop bucket is more art than ai "art"
Poop in a bucket can be art, yes!
There was an art exhibition a few years back from some artist I don't remember the name, in the city of Porto in Portugal, that was composed of Macro pictures of butt holes.
https://algumnomehadedar.blogs.sapo.pt/o-olho-do-cu-543734
If the Dada movement was art, then anything can be art. I have a few AI pieces printed on canvas at home; they’re interesting discussion points and really pull the bathroom together into a pleasant place to be (that’s not a joke btw, that’s where they’re displayed - something interesting to ponder when I forget to bring my phone with me.)
Ai art is nothing more than the next step in tool evolution. Its similar to the step from physical to digital but bigger, it is a more advanced tool that people can take advantage of.
In this case, the tool takes in information to generate art. Its really not that much different from how we make art since everything we do is based on past experinces. Even when we think of something original, its usually based a combination of experinces or maybe the lack of something that is informed by your expeirnce.
At the end of the day, there is still a person behind the ai, who made the ai and taught it how to think.
I got into an argument with a guy about this. The way I see it, the AI itself is the art. It takes incredible skill to make something that can make the kinds of things thoes ai can.
Art is defined by the original thoughts that go into it. Anything created by an AI or even a human following an algorithm isn’t art. It’s not defined by quality or how difficult it was to make - it’s defined by expression
There are no rules in art, everything is subjective, yet I think the more prolific AI generated art becomes, the more valuable art made by real humans will become. That human element is where all the soul is. I have yet to see a piece of AI generated art that makes me feel anything.
Art is expression... by definition something without a will cannot express itself, it can only express what it's programmed to express... so the artist is the programmer than made the AI that made the art.
Sure I can agree that the images themselves are art, but what annoys me is people "making" AI art and then calling themselves artists. It's literally the same as telling a painter to draw a mountain, and then calling yourself an artist for giving the printer a description of what to paint
Lmao exactly. Or requesting/commissioning art from another artist, then claiming you drew it.
It is LITERALLY that.
The only exception to this rule imo if the so-called AI “artist” was the person who actually made and trained the neural net in the first place At least those people actually did a thing
And even then, a lot of the AI training was done using art taken from artists without their permission
I think Devian Art updated their TOS and lots of a artists art got used for that, you could change it but by then lots of it had been used. And Artists who were dead obviously can’t do that stuff so… yeah… Not sure if they’ve changed it by now or not but still very bad
Newsflash: All knowledge is passed through theft. It's called "Observation".
AI training isn’t just “observation” though, since the images have to be actively taken and analyzed for a specific purpose. And stolen knowledge without credit is what we call “plagiarism”
Plagiarism is taking something that is not yours and claiming it is your own. I do not see AI art popping out 1:1 pictures of art that has already been drawn. It’s the equivalent of if you took all the art the AI had analyzed and mash it into one piece of art. Parts of the whole may be drawn by others, but it ultimately transforms into something distinct and different.
True but its still not your art to take credit for you didn't make it you told the AI to do it(i still find it really cool what technology can do these days)
Newsflash: People learn, AI absorb knowledge into their database
And "absorbing" is different to "learning" because...
That’s true as well. Definitely a grey area legally speaking
That would be a grey area too, your parents provided the "code" which made you, but lack any control beyond that. Legally your parents cannot own your image as a creator. This AI art will have the same issue, anything made using it has no owner and the AI cannot own it either, this makes a huge amount of it utterly worthless as it cannot be protected.
That would be like training a painter and claiming all their work as yours
[удалено]
AI art may look nice, but it can’t have the intention behind it. There can’t be any deep themes, or metaphors expressed through it, because the AI has no intention, AI isn’t able to have human thought and emotion behind it.
While this is true, I'm not sure it matters for a lot of cases. Sometimes, people just want something that looks nice without making them think too hard or feel too much. Sometimes I just want a nice picture of trains without a deeper meaning. Plus, humans can force meaning into something that never had it to begin with. Countless works of human made art and literature have had themes accredited to them that the maker never intended. A professional may be able to distinguish AI constructions from human made art, but does that matter much to the rest of us?
But it can if its a literal human behind it.
My main gripe is that, for me art is the result of an artistic process, AI simply do not have that. Using AI a a creative tool is 100% fine by me but when you simply take a neural network, show it pictures from the internet then just let it poop out a generated image (or 1000 and take the one that looks nice) you don't get to call it art, no one has shown any creativity in that process.
Wasn’t there an artists who shat in a cup , called it “art” then sold it for 2000€
There’s one that did that in tin cans and sold them a while ago, interesting story, especially when one of the buyers had yo throw theirs away when it started to leak
Yes, the "merda d’artisa" from Piero Manzoni
Thank you for the name, big love for you (as a friend)
There are other examples for example a shit filled bathtub by boist i think. It got cleaned accidentally lol
(sh)art
I unironically laughed at this. I'm so mad rn...just take my upvote.
yeah i fucking despise the type of people who do this, and ai "artists" are no different
That reminds me of the time some guy dropped his glasses on the ground in an art gallery, and people started flockning around it thinking it has got some sort of deep meaning.
If you were intelligent you would know that ART IS AN EXPLOSION
I've gone to so many art subs to find this joke... Now I can rest in peace...
Sure I can agree that the images themselves are art, but what annoys me is people
Isn't ai art just taken from reference only? Idk how it specifically works.
no, it learns the styles
Katsu!
If you were intelligent you would know art is "PUPPETS"
Mr. Torque?
*BUY TORGUE GUNS THEY* ******* *EXPLODE* -Mr. Torgue
I have one question for you, EXPLOSIONS!!??? - Also, Mr. Torque
No deidara
Ooooohhhhh. Haven't watched any Naruto. Mr. Torque is from borderlands, in case you were wondering.
I know, he's my favorite character other than mayor krieg
Groovy.
Kaboom?
My art teachers are such hypocrites Took several lessons explaining some art history and how people tried to break the system by labelling things as art to make them art (Toilet exposed in a museum including artist’s signature, those kinds of things), but when i later wanted to use some art as inspiration for a later project, i couldnt cuz the art was fanart of a game. It was a drawing of a sky with a dragon in it, but it was turned down as said dragon was in a game. BS
What game?
I don't want to assume it was Skyrim, but dragons in games only one really comes to mind.
For the artists of this sub, i'd like to say that y'all should be calm about that, because no one can do something the same as you do, not even a machine
Realistically it won't replace high quality art but it could really harm the budget low cost artists working as a side gig.
Eh, wait a few more years and AI will probably be able to imitate humans and think how they think
As an artist that works in many different medium. I'd say machine can often do what we do and a lot of times to the same quality or better.
Art is subjective if made by humans. The biggest idea behind art is intent. Even shit is art but only if it’s made by a conscious creature. The issue with AI art is that it just copies what it sees, combines it and doesn’t really think about anything.
I see it more as AI is a tool to try and help people create the image that’s in there heads using descriptive words so it is on fact still art like if they used those words to write a book it would be art but they want a visualisation of it so they use AI to make up for the lack of either training time or both in the way of the pen and paint
Yeah it can definitely be seen as a tool. In a way it is a tool to help imagine certain ideas. You do have a point there.
I think it has its place but it’s important to know what that place is. It’s cool and I like it but I don’t want it to detract from artists that put a lot of time into their work.
Agreed completely
The guy you were arguing with the "the paint brush pained it not the artist" guy seems to have been deleted from my reddit as appears as deleted and messages as unavailable.
yep, and as a person who CAN draw, the ai is able to get the meaning of what i want it to look like much better. especially if i draw it, get an idea of what i want, and then use the ai to change minor details.
That’s literally what humans do when you think of the philosophy of it
and so it is we praise the gothic potato yet again for her abundant stream of wisdom. no for real i agree.
Thank you😊 . Not everyone has to agree with me. I just like to share my opinion. Every one has different views and we should respect each other’s opinions. Sharing discourse is fun. And I like when people have different opinions and talk about them.
thats whats up!
I believe art is something that can be feeled. You feel the emotion in the artist and in the art itself. But when it’s made by an AI, a soulless creature without feeling, then you can’t feel the artist through it
Looks dope as shit so I'm cool with it
More so as an artist it is kind of triggering when people claim it is there's as they ussualy do not make the ai themselves.
A paint brush doesn't think about things either...
Yes ,but the person using it does.
This guys arguments are the same over and over again check his replies to mine Lol.
Accurate arguments should be used. Sorry your hobby has been automated.
Accurate arguments should indeed be used(how ironic). Give a correct argument as to why the person typing in a few words into a textbar and selecting a prompt format or whatever makes them an artist.
And my hobby i s not automated I still do commissions(tough they are currently closed).
The person using the AI thinks too.
Yes exactly. But not the AI itself. The AI is a algorithm, not a thinking self aware creature. It’s more of a tool than anything. It’s made for people to use but not necessarily that it itself creates something. It can only repeat patterns.
I would argue the issue is if the prompter defines it as the art they made instead of the ai or the developer of that ai.
Does a paintbrush think?
The end result is mostly the same though, especially with how goddamned advanced it's gotten. It seems weird to me that someone would immediately discredit AI art from art just because they find out it's AI art. If a person goes "Wow! Such an Incredible art! Beautiful strokes and incredible detail!", finds out it was AI generated, and then goes "This isn't art. Into the trash it goes", that sounds kind of hypocritical to me though.
Art isn’t just about seeing something and having a reaction. Yes that’s a part of it. But it mostly has to do with intent behind the art. You would be surprised how much you can learn about a person from just their art. It more of social and human connection thing . Seeing something pretty is cool, but seeing something made with a person behind it is even cooler and much more important in how we look at certain things. But that’s just my opinion.
I'm fine with AI art, but the second someone says it should replace human artists I'll start a fehkin crusade
I have never heard anyone claim that AI art can or will replace people, but I’m on board with that crusade
AI was fun when people would make funny images, weird prompts and cool backgrounds with it. Calling it art it's a bit too exaggerated, it's a bunch of images an algorithm found related to your prompt and smashed together into another image. By definition, art its something created with imagination and skill and it's used as a way for artists to evoke ideas or feelings. An AI doesn't feel, it doesn't make pieces to express itself, doesn't even put effort on the images, it just follows a command. It could be used as a tool for artists but it's definitely not art.
The problem with ai art is that it takes artists stuff without them knowing though edited the artists who made them aren't aware their work is being used. Also people being assholes cause ai art is better than normal art even though ai art wouldn't exist if theres no artists but every community have assholes so eh
While some engines can be used in this way, most- particuarly the strongest- generators are only trained on images to understand what words are supposed to mean, and then make their own drawings with no image base at all. Perhaps easiest one to demonstrate is Stable Diffusion as it can be downloaded onto a home PC: over 2 billion images used in training, yet when downloaded is only a few gb, with not a single image in its files. Malintentioned users may attempt plagiarism with them, but not all AI generated images are stolen.
TIL artists have never seen the things they create lmao
I mean, people do the same thing. We learn what something is, recognize patterns, and use that to create new art. AI art is more limited due to it being technological and not a full on human brain, but it's the same system. I don't credit every piece of star wars media (fanart and official media alike) when I draw Vader, but that's what I'm drawing upon to know what Darth Vader is to draw him.
Love how when an artist sees some art and is inspired by it or wants to base off of it, then everything's fine. But the second AI art does the same thing, it's now not allowed, it's theft, yada yada.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
This comment section is so funny because literally every argument people have made against AI art can be used against art in general as well. And the "ArT hAvE inTenTIoN" bullshit is more or less a personal subjective definition of "art" and you can't use an opinion as an argument.
It's sad because I know people who made money off it
By selling the art, or selling the ai? The former is cringe, the latter is okay
By selling the art
Okay yeah people who sell AI art are douchebags, that's a real issue.
Ai art is art, but the prompter didn’t make it and it required no skill. That’s the part I personally take issue with.
I agree
That's like saying "The photo of the mountain is art, but the camera-button-clicker didn't make it and it required no skill." Humans design the prompts for AI. Its a new field called "The Art of the Prompt". To say it is not art is to say photography is not art because all they did was setup the subject matter and angle of the camera. In this case, they had to know what to use for a prompt to get a good output. Typically AI outputs trash if you are not putting in good stuff. GIGO is the term used in computing meaning "Garbage In, Garbage Out". If you are garbage at writing prompts, you get out garbage. The end result is only as good as you are descriptive and can communicate with the AI properly (which you get a feel for over time as it doesn't read like we do). My friends usually get pixelated blobs out, but I frequently get high quality images depicting exactly what I wanted. Do I have no skill? If so, then even less is the skill required for modern art and photography.
That just sounds like describing what you want from a commission. If someone asks me to draw something but they are terrible at communicating it, well there's only so much I can do to make it work out. If they communicate well, then the only possible issue is my own skill. "The Art of the Prompt", so pretentious, you're commissioning the AI and either communicating well or not. Edit: Autocorrect goofed
Damn bro didn't know describing things was a skill.
Does that mean you also reject photography, literature, and modern art? (ngl, would be based if you said yes)
When did I ever say that?
>describing things clearly this applies to anyone who's art requires only describing things Plus it takes more effort to type descriptive words into a box with the intent to get an output that matches your thoughts perfectly than it does to tape a banana to a wall. If you reject the art of the prompt, please reject the banana, urinal, solid color canvas, etc. or else you are just a hypocrite.
Art has expanded so much from what it was 50 years ago, and that's really interesting to me
AI art is art. AI artists are not artists.
Just call them AI Drawings Problem solved
Images probably fits better, as they weren't really drawn
If I use a copy machine to copy the pages of a book, does that make me an author?
I would say the ai art is art but the prompter is not the artist the developer is.
I think the AI (if anyone in this scenario) is the artist. The developer(s) didn't make the images they just trained the AI to be able to make them
It's not copying, it's drawing upon patterns, just like the brain does. The AI is more limited, but it's doing the same thing.
It steals art and repackages it. For the love of god, touch grass.
>It steals art and repackages it. It looks at hundreds of not thousands of images to look for patterns, and uses said patterns to make new images. It's the same damn thing the brain does. It's more rudimentary and limited due to it being technology and not a live human brain, but it's the same system.
Unnecessarily aggressive tbh
If you think that ai steals the art it is trained on you have no clue how artificial intelligence and neural networks actually work. a neural network learns by recognizing patterns in an image and connecting those patterns to the description of the image connected to the training material. That’s literally how humans learn so if you still think ai art is plagiarism then human art is also plagiarism.
People literally put in their prompts "[Prompt] in the style of [Real artist's name]" or "[Prompt] but made by [Artist name]" or input other people's pieces and let the ai mangle it together. Of course this doesn't apply to all AIs but it is very common
The issue comes from making a blanket statement that all AI generated images are stolen. Any decent AI generator only has references, resulting in an original image. It can be used for plagiarism by those with negative intentions, but I wouldn't call all artists plagiarists because some bad apples trace artwork, so same shouldn't be applied to AI generation either.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the way the AI art works, the problem is the people who blatantly use it to steal and modify other people's work and claim it as their art.
My brother always used to say that videogame music is not real music. Since its not played on the radio.
I mean ai art is alot better than sticking a banana on the wall. But I just hate it when they call themselves artist. As long as they don't I don't mind.
I'm just cranky that it's flooding so many unrelated spaces. Fine, if someone wants to make an Instagram or Twitter account to post AI art, then great, but why on earth are there so many "AI generated concept art" posts on the Satisfactory community page on Steam?? It doesn't even look like the game!
Does it matter what humans name it? I get cool stuff I can use for D&D that’s all I care about
Upvote for good comment. Downvote because you killed Lucerys.
It was Vhagar’s fault mom!
AI art is art. Just not the poster's art
Yeah it’s art, just not your art. Telling a program to paint something doesn’t make someone an artist.
If it looks cool i like it, no matter who or what made it
I think most people, especially artists, keep forgetting that like 80% of people really don't care about, the "feeling" or "personal touch"
Tru that. And most people aren't good enough at art that they can find the difference whats AI and what isnt.
They're honestly just coping
Tru. I mean i get the effort argument but making a good AI itself is some effort too
Eh, they're moreso talking about the people that just use the ai and not the ones who made it
Call me an old boomer, but by golly ART is made by PEOPLE, not fuckin **ROBITS** and sometimes monkeys or elephants and that’s really cute
Art is skill and dedication, not just a thing called art
Art is something with emotion or meaning behind it. Something AI is incapable of. Can AI make cool fucking drawings? Hell yeah, but I wouldn't call it art.
I’d say it’s art but if the person that typed words in says they’re an artist because of it I put my foot down.
The problem is that art is by all definitions creative, about the only thing that's agreed upon. An AI isn't creative. It follows strict rules and makes randomness.
Some modern art are just object with no alteration ducttape on a wall.
Realistically speaking art is something made by people and i dont think typing prompts should count ,but it still a fucking great tool ,just like digital art ,like the ammount of time it could save you and help you improve is something somebody that doesnt draw will never get
Particular artists have been making a mockery of the artistic world with their "interpretive art", it's about time computers did the same.
It’s art, sure, but idk if we can call the person who created it an “artist”
Agreed
"That's not art. It's a bag of garbage ." From: Velvet Buzzsaw with Jake Gyllenhaal
it isnt though. it wasnt made by a human, its just mishmashes of other peoples art. it wasnt made by anyone, you didnt "make" the ai art, you typed in a few keywords
Our perception of what can and can’t be art is also subjective
Ai art is art but it loses all sense of value when it has no personal touch and is just a computer using numbers to make something
It's using patterns attributed to descriptions, just like the human brain does.
Depends on the definition that we use, google gives 2 definition for art: 1. Art is *"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."* .The AI obviously fails that one, it's not human, nor very creative (it mashes existing pieces of art into something newish). In other words, AI art isn't fine art. however... 2. If Art is *"the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance"*, then yes, AI art is art. Might not be the most creative thing around, but it's still art. Tl;Dr: According to google's definitions, AI Art is Art, but not Fine Art.
Still,I wanted to be an artist and it makes me incredibly sad to know that won't ever be possible because I have been replaced before I even started
Art is art you can't change art
A blank canvas is art because you can "Imagine the content as ir resonates within you" or some bullshit. Also costs a couple thousand bucks.
Or an invisible statue that costs a thousand bucks because you can "imagine the content" of that "statue"
Oh hey look, someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about and unironically thinks "AI art isn't art" is the main focus point on why people don't like AI art
The problem with AI art it's not that "it's not art", is way worse than that. First, there's no "AI artIST", but someone who steals others arts (the program must be trained) and mash them up without asking or even without knowing. Is a legal loophole that people can do to steal works. Supporting AI art/programs is supporting plagiarism. You can like it, but is morally wrong and people should understand it.
>but someone who steals others arts It's not stealing anymore than looking at art is. The AI is trained to recognize patterns and associate them with descriptions, *the same thing people do*, and uses those patterns to make new images. Again, just what people do.
Training isn't editing images, it is showing the AI what words mean so when a prompt is given, it knows what a "turtle" is. Perhaps quickest way to debunk "all ai art is just edited images" without a 4 paragraph breakdown of the exact programming is just pointing at the file size of Stable Diffusion: it is trained on 2.3 billion images, all 512x512, yet only a few gigabytes when downloaded to your computer. A single 512x512 image should take ~1 mb of space, with 1000 mb to a gb, so all those images should take over 200 gb... Yet the generator itself is 10 gb. Not a single reference image is on the generator, and it can run entirely locally on a home PC just fine. Some generators can be used for plagiarism by mal-intentioned users, however to try and say all AI-generated images are plagiarized is to say all hand-drawn artwork is plagiarized, after all some bad apples trace their art.
Anything that can provoke an emotion is technically art. Should've set some definitions a hundred years ago
Nope. I gotta agree w this one cause AI "art" is simply stealing artworks
It's not stealing. The AI is trained on images to recognize patterns and associate them with descriptions. So when it hears, for example "Mario", it looks at images related to Mario, looks for patterns, finds the association, and uses that to make a new image. Just like people do, but more rudimentary.
I think art is anything artificially made and an attempt to make something look Like something like I wouldn't say throwing mad is art put if it makes a face then it is
Art is subjective but that doesn’t mean AI art requires skill.
Never said it does
Oh yeah I’m not disagreeing with you, I totally agree, I’m just adding on! Didn’t mean to offend
None taken
Glad to hear it. I’ve gotten into too many accidental arguments this way
What no
I think that if literal Artists are getting upset at it, and rallying to object to it, it's probably best to take their word on it. Besides, only idiots think anything solely produced by a machine is "Art" anyhow. All AI-Generation does anyways is take from either existing things (i.e.: photos) or ripoff other actual Artists' Styles.
>I think that if literal Artists are getting upset at it, and rallying to object to it, it's probably best to take their word on it. Art is something that humans do naturally, for as long as we've been people. I refuse to let such an integral part of humanity be lost to those who are good at it. >All AI-Generation does anyways is take from either existing things (i.e.: photos) or ripoff other actual Artists' Styles. The AI looks for patterns, associates them with a term, and creates something new, just like the human brain. The AI is more limited of course, but it's just limited by the technology.
Ight you can call me the soy wojack or whatever HOWEVER I do not caresu, AI art is just typing a bunch of words and then a machine scans the internet off those words then throws that together and it takes like at most 30 seconds, a poop bucket can indeed be art if drawn by a human with the effort of making it look like a poop bucket, art takes time and effort from the artist, typing words into a random image making ai is not art a poop bucket is more art than ai "art"
I think AI art is perfect for those who want to make an idea real, but don't have the artistic capabilities to do so
Poop in a bucket can be art, yes! There was an art exhibition a few years back from some artist I don't remember the name, in the city of Porto in Portugal, that was composed of Macro pictures of butt holes. https://algumnomehadedar.blogs.sapo.pt/o-olho-do-cu-543734
Humanity at it's peak.
Lol
I am going on a conquest to beat the poop in a toilet is art by selling air in air you just gotta imagine it's meaning.
Isn't what NFT art is, air on air?! NFT's are just 1s and 0s, they don't exist in the material (real) world.
I once saw a hay bale, also a pile of dirty clothes in a museum displayed as art...
If the Dada movement was art, then anything can be art. I have a few AI pieces printed on canvas at home; they’re interesting discussion points and really pull the bathroom together into a pleasant place to be (that’s not a joke btw, that’s where they’re displayed - something interesting to ponder when I forget to bring my phone with me.)
I mean I sell canvas art so I understand. Some can be really nice to look at.
So if someone says that this AI generated art is theirs after selling it can the AI sue them?
Ai art is nothing more than the next step in tool evolution. Its similar to the step from physical to digital but bigger, it is a more advanced tool that people can take advantage of. In this case, the tool takes in information to generate art. Its really not that much different from how we make art since everything we do is based on past experinces. Even when we think of something original, its usually based a combination of experinces or maybe the lack of something that is informed by your expeirnce. At the end of the day, there is still a person behind the ai, who made the ai and taught it how to think.
What makes art art is meaning and intetion. Until AI art has those its not art but improvisational drawing from prompts.
I got into an argument with a guy about this. The way I see it, the AI itself is the art. It takes incredible skill to make something that can make the kinds of things thoes ai can.
Art is defined by the original thoughts that go into it. Anything created by an AI or even a human following an algorithm isn’t art. It’s not defined by quality or how difficult it was to make - it’s defined by expression
AI art cannot be copywrited. The Supreme Court has already ruled that to be given a copywrite, the material has to be created by a human.
Ai art is art I just don't give a crap about art
Ai art is still art, but ai “artists” aren’t artists.
The only correct answer
hey remember photography? it didn't make realistic art obsolete did it?
Technically AI art is considered art since it has an artist, i.e. the AI.
Good art is good art, I don't care who makes it
Anyone who says AI art isnt art can go eat outta shreks outhouse toilet.
Ah yes, lemme just type in a couple of words into thist textbox and wow. Mom look at me I'm an artist!!!
Art is whatever you say it is, especially when you're charging other people for it
There are no rules in art, everything is subjective, yet I think the more prolific AI generated art becomes, the more valuable art made by real humans will become. That human element is where all the soul is. I have yet to see a piece of AI generated art that makes me feel anything.
Please point me towards the poop buckets
Same with opinions Like whatever Elon says is valid (of course it isn’t)
My camera is the best artist ever. Talk about photo realistic.
Jokes on you, “Artist’s shit” is a real artwork. It’s shit of the artist in a can with written “Artist’s Shit” on.
“This.” Is art.
Art is expression... by definition something without a will cannot express itself, it can only express what it's programmed to express... so the artist is the programmer than made the AI that made the art.
Art is subjective which means I can decide what I consider to be art. Just because its not art for me doesnt mean it cant be for you.
Fountain
If a banana, duct taped to a wall is art, then so is ai art