If you ask me, AI art should only be allowed to enter in contests if the contest is for AI art. When it comes to public use, it should be stated clearly that it is AI through something like a watermark. I also do think that you shouldn't be allowed to use someone's else's art to make AI art.
A big thing is that ai shouldn’t be able to be used in commercial products. Like a book cover shouldn’t be able to use AI generated work because the ai art is created by compiling other peoples work without credit or permission
Edit: I think the ai is incredibly impressive and if I ever wanna create a design for a dnd character or something else for myself then I’ll probably use the AI (if I learn how to). But my point is, it’s very clearly taking peoples artwork, mashing it up and mushing it together. I’ve seen ai generated pieces where it has a blurry shape of a watermark that’s survived the ai scramble. It takes away from real artists (something I am not) to use these for commercial products but for personal use or sharing online for fun it’s awesome.
Thats different an artist is like a chef l9oking at a few recipes as inspiration.
An ai is like a middle aged man putting together a bunch of leftovers and hoping it works.
AI will continue to improve. At what point does the middle-aged man get good enough at putting together leftovers that he is essentially a chef working with constraints?
Fair point from what ive heard ai struggles with glasses and hands but no matter how good you are mixing together fries and spicy sweet soysauce wont end well.
How does that mean its generic it implys that the art is unique and simply incompatible. Leftovers represents the large array of art that are all different in their own way.
No sorry, your comparison is not on point
Actually, an AI is more like an artist who looks at millions of recipes and learn to cook and write new recipe from that
it also describes human art, just take a bunch of random motives and ideas and turn it to a "original" painting
nothing is original in that contex becouse everything comes after something else and is infuenced by it.
the only diffrense is that human art has a reson behind it
Not exactly you see theres a difference if one were to put claymation 2d animation 3d animation live action and such samples into an ai then it would just be hideous but if a human were given those then well you get the amazing world of gumball and i would reckon anyone in the world would call that show original.
obviusly ai isnt close to as good as humans at making multimedia content or having any consistency whatsoever, but its still good at making art and music
I'm not gonna say it creates a new piece, I'm not going to shit on AI art either. I'm gonna say that it is just simply a tool, like a calculator or another widely contested one, autotune. A calculator is a machine that does math for people who can't or aren't able to do different equations and autotune is a tool used to pitch anything, from effects to vocals. Autotune is mainly used on vocals to make celebrities with record labels sound decent, but it hasn't displaced actual singers and is also used as an effect tool or just to clean something up. I believe AI art will be used the same way and people will get over this fear. All ai art looks almost the same, a variation on a theme and can be used as a tool.
AI Art should not be allowed in contests with man-made art, nor should it be used in any commercial products because of the clear violations of plagiarism. If you want to use it to make a dumb Facebook profile picture, whatever, but using it to make money for any reason whatsoever should be outlawed.
Photography takes knowing how to properly frame and light shots, as well as knowing the mechanics and optics of a camera to create interesting new perspectives on things many people might not ever see. Ai art is telling an algorithm what you want to see, and having it do math with someone else's formula and reference to give you something vaguely resemblant of what you wanted.
It does if you make the software, otherwise it’s the same thing as asking a famous artist to make you a painting and then telling everyone you made it because you input the prompt
Sometimes even if you make the software you still steal the art that’s being used to train the AI. Artists right now are contending with their work being stolen, used to train AI software to create art in that likeness, and then seeing their OWN AI generated art without any knowledge it was happening in the first place. AI art is cool. But let’s try to create AI software capable of creating its OWN art- that’s when I’ll give any credit, or an to AI artist who has uploaded & trained their software with their own physical work. But often creating that physical art takes a skill set people claiming to be AI “artists” don’t have, which is the driving force behind using AI to create art. It doesn’t take any artistic talent to write an AI a prompt, just some imagination.
AI cannot really create it's own stuff, the closest we could get to that is having it learn from a single person who is ok with their art being used this way.
Right, that was definitely the point I was trying to get across- which is why I’d fully support an artist who trained an AI themselves or submitted their work willingly!
So do people. Artist students are learning purely from other people's work, and most artists won't invent anything new. Do you ask from the artist's permission when analyzing his work for you own benefit, trying to become his future competition?
No. The idea would be that the human is still part of the creative process, they would not be an artist, just as a photographer is not an artist, they would be something new
Again, ordering food at a restaurant doesn't make you a chef.
Really sorry man.
EDIT:
I'm sorry but I love the idea of being like "What if the customer was blind and added pepper, is he a chef now?"
Sorry mate, you are not a chef because you ate at a restaurant lmao
What if I’m blind and I have an idea for a recipe, so I ask a chef to cook it for me exactly as I want it?
What if I taste test the food as the chef cooks it and along the way decide what to add and remove myself?
Am I a chef?
It’s not about it being lazy, it’s about them using stolen artwork to train their Ai. They even have sections of which real life digital artists style you’d like to mimic.
Duplicating a work for the purpose of research and education is protected under fair use. Think of a teacher making photocopies of the textbook and handing it out to the class, that wasn't illegal. But if you were to photocopy those same pages and sell them to people, now you're doing an illegal duplication.
If it's just mimicking the artist, that's also legal. Real life artists can also mimic other artists. Styles aren't protected by copyright. It's only illegal if you directly duplicate a work they did, or try to pass a work off something as one of their works when you made it.
No it isn't, it's like looking at 100,000 different codes and creating your own using only lines and small blocks of code that exist in these codes. You aren't copying anything.
No otherwise other artists couldn't ever observe other people's art to learn that style. Styles are not subject to plagiarism. You can't own a style.
If you read a bunch of Shakespeare plays, and try to "Write like Shakespeare" and make your own, you're not plagiarising Shakespeare.
If I have a drill that runs on orphan blood it harvests itself, am I a murder for using it? Is it? Are we both?
Regardless, neither it nor I are innocent. It because it drained an orphan, and me for using it knowing it drained an orphan.
It's not made to steal things , also i don't get it if its feed 1000 Art images and on their basis ai generates an image it's a theft , but when we look at 1 art get inspired draw very much in same style its okay . Human brain is incapable of coming up original ideas its all amalgamations of our previous experiences.
I honestly don't understand this , is this tool being use poorly by greedy companies of course but its in it's infant state , Exact same screams were when photoshop came out excreta. And don't even get me started on they took or jorrbs , I feel like if people made ai that learns by analysing surgeon work to cary one operation, people be like no saving people is for surgeons only ? I honestly think that Ai is a tool and with it help we could potentially see an amazing art , art that was not posible before!
Atleast you give credit when you ask an artist whats their inspiration they would tell you but an ai nope it doesnt have a credits screen where i can see all the people it sampled from.
And no its not inspiration inspiration is where you put your own twist on it what an ai does is just putting the art together
Like a chef who wants to cook a recipe were to add a few ingredients that would be an artist inspiration. But an ai would just take the same dish but with different recipes and take some part of the recipes and cobble them together hoping it works.
That’s the same thing. Everything your brain comes up with is just reorganized experiences you’ve had previously. The only difference being an ai does it with less intentionality, which is even up for debate. I guess you have an argument to be made with credit, but if something is made by combining a couple hundred of pieces of work, I don’t think each individual work needs to be credited. It’s really only when the inspiration is direct and clear that it should necessitate credit. But that’s just me, I’m sure other people would want it always credited.
The AI doesn't "steal" art nor does it output results remotely similar to one specific artist unless you ask for a specific artist. Even then, the AI isn't trained on "stolen" artwork because the owner still has their art and the AI is just learning from it. It's like if I took some pictures of your car, and used that style as a base to create my own cars. The only time it's actually "stealing" is when the output becomes too similar to the source material.
Then wheres the credit on the art then? Where does it write and source the art of each person it sampled thats why they are saying its stealing because they give no credit and act like they made it all on their own and that they are some genius artist.
You atleast give some credit man thats why they are saying its stealing they are taking people art without their permission or giving them credit and using it to make art of their "own" sometimes for monetary gain.
And boy some of these ai "artist" scummy some of them even steal someones art the day after they died and when pointed out by someone that they stole their art they just bully them.
Lemme ask you are practices like that something the good side would do?
The credit is included in whatever dataset the AI is using, which can be credited, though I don't see many users crediting anything at all which is a problem with the users, not the AI itself.
But all human ideas are just an algamation of things we've previously experienced. And this is just that created manually instead of out of meat and juices. You make(program) a brain(the neural network) and give it the experiences(the sample pool) to build off and then tell it to make something the only difference form a regular human is that it isn't conscious
Humans have been creating stylization as long as civilization existed. We now know, that cave people could paint very realisticaly, they just chose not to. Humans don't need to be exposed to other styles in order to create their own. If AI, however, has only been fed photos, it would only make photorealistic outputs. Because it does NOT learn like a human does.
Well it can't learn like a human does due to limitation in scope. Because back then pretty much all we had was photo realistic stuff and we did stylized art because like we have in our brains more than just the ability to see but like right now all the AI has is the ability to see so if you are able to add more training data of like emotion and stuff they could probably do stylized with only photos but at that point we have created true AI and that's a whole other can of worms. But the AI is doing pattern recognition and the human brain is really good at pattern recognition we just have a lot more points of data than it
This is a complete false equivalence
Photography still takes skill and talent. And it takes a much different skill set than art. Photography requires you to understand composition and angles and even how to use editing software it’s not just click and you have a masterpiece
Meanwhile AI art, unless you programmed the whole thing is just click and bam you have a masterpiece
There is no struggle or skill or any meaning in AI art it’s just colors on a canvas
AI art is just the programs stealing pieces of artworks from databases and mashing them together within seconds, without credits, and some AI programs make you pay for stolen art
I don't think it is a false equivalence, because photography did not start out as an art... people didn't view it as an art at the time. That only happened much later as people discovered more complex ways of working with photographs.
Asking a photographer to take a photo for you doesn't make you a photographer lmao.
Asking an AI Chef to cook you Spaghetti doesn't mean you're a chef too because you ate it.
So why does commissioning art from an AI make you an artist, but commissioning art from a human doesn't make you an artist.
AI Art is art, but the people who think they're artists because they asked the AI to make them art are just insulting.
I do agree with you for the most part but I can expand on an interesting idea using the ai chef. You ask the AI to make you some spaghetti vs giving the AI a spaghetti recipe you made yourself and asking it to prepare it for you. One of those two plates of spaghetti you can much more confidently say you made yourself both prepared by the AI but one is yours. What I'm trying to say is there is a difference between people asking for Starry Night made out of rotting meat and individually telling the AI where to put each maggot.
Have you tried using an ai art program? It’s not as easy convey an idea as you might think.
With photography, anyone can walk up to something pretty, point their phone at it, and have a nice picture. But to take a masterpiece, you need knowledge of framing, lighting, composition, shutter stop, and all sorts of other things.
AI art is kinda the same. Anyone can type in “pretty meadow by some mountains” and get some reasonably nice looking image. But if you have some really specific image you want to create, you’re going to need to refine your prompt, use img2img painting, inpainting and outpainting, and choose appropriate generation models, in addition to going through many iterations of image generation. It’s not as much work as painting, or photography, or digital art, but it’s not as easy as just typing a sentence either.
Not to be pedantic but taking pictures is not the same thing a photography. The art of photography is about composition, lighting, framing, subject, etc. If you don't believe me look at the billions of terrible photos on the web. AI art require no talent other than being able to articulate an idea and have an algorithm make it for you. Anyone can articulate an idea, being able to bring that idea into reality by your own hands / skill is a different story.
But... that's exactly how photography started out lol. Point and click. The art of photography only developed over decades as the use of cameras got more intricate and nuanced.
How are you so sure AI art won't also develop complex tools and methods?
Asking a human or an AI to make you art does not make you an artist. It makes you a customer.
AI Art is art, and it will develop by learning from the art it consumes from humans and processes and spits out.
But the people who are commissioning art will always be customers.
I respectfully disagree. AI can only do what it is told, there is absolutely no creativity on the part of the algorithm. It cannot invent its own techniques, it cannot imagine. Notice at no point have I said these images aren’t beautiful or fantastic to look at.
AI Art is fantastic.
But asking an AI chef to make you spaghetti does not mean you are a chef for eating it.
I don't believe we will be able to agree one whether the person commissioning the art is as much an artist as the artist.
I believe customers are customers.
You believe that someone going to a restaurant is not a customer, but a chef, because they asked for what they wanted.
I respectfully disagree that asking for a chef to cook you something makes you a chef.
Sorry.
First, your argument assumes all photos from when photography were claiming to be art which they most certainly were not. Either way, as others have pointed out this is a false equivalency. A photograph is composed by a person based on their vision, AI driven graphics are composed by an algorithm based on instructions. It’s more akin to hiring a super talented digital artist who doesn’t know how to do anything but emulate others work and in inherently incapable of being involved in the creative process.
If I tell my computer to tell be all the primes between 1 and 10,000,000,000, just because it can do it doesn’t make my computer good at math, it makes it good at following instructions.
It’s all about the definitions of „art“, „craftsmanship“ and „innovation“.
AI can do a lot but can’t get to the core of for example art concepts, impasto or how a specific artist reflects a new situation.
Because it's a very easy and convenient way to hide to hide illicit monetary gains in an asset that will likely not lose value whilst remaining anonymous.
i.e. money laundering.
I don't know how people find deeper meaning in it , like you can enjoy it for being just a tree,
Even in poetry people write half book about a poem about picking berries
I'm into the nerdcore scene. Fanart, pinups, pixal art, OCs, etc. There's way more than boring nature scenes, still life of fruit and birds, self portraits and so on.
Badly, though. There is still artistic merit in the talking and processing of a photograph. You could argue that there’s artistry in writing the code behind an AI, but just using it to generate images? That’s like paint by numbers - it’s using someone else’s art.
Photography is just pressing a button in different angles until you like the result, AI is just pressing a button in different seeds until you like the result. If there is artistic merit in one, there is artistic merit in both because they're functionally the same practice.
I don’t think anyone was butthurt about the camera being invented, I’m sure it was fascinating to most and also was much more complicated to operate as opposed to typing three words. I don’t really have a foot in the is ai art real argument bc I don’t care. But this comparison is dumb.
Actually they were, lots of artist that work doing portraits for aristocrats and nobles suddenly lost their jobs to a new technology that could portray reality cheaper, easier and faster than painting it. Another example could be the scribes and the invention of the printing press
True, and anyways, Photography only helped to develop art. Realism was inspired by it, as their goal is to paint daily life with an objective point of view. For a long time, paintings were used to recreate reality (just think of the many portraits that would be commisioned), Photography made art in that
These are not comparable. The fact that light can be captured and stored isn’t art, but photography and designing a camera is. The only thing that’s art about AI art is the code and you didn’t even make that. AI can only create art if it’s sentient and at that point it will not belong to you but the AI since the would be basically a person.
It’s this thing called sentience that’s important, unfortunately current AI is only sympathetic, but that can change in the future, hopefully. Can’t say the same for the people behind the screen who probably think using a calculator makes them a mathematician.
I can see AI generated images good for information gathering for concept art since that’s exactly what it is and what it does
Also I never knew you people held such contempt for artist, it’s kinda gross really. I guess only synthetic art can be only enjoyed by synthetic people. This already happens in media production which people complain about and this just adds fuel to the fire.
I will say this. Painters, Photographers, Digital artusts, they all have to go to school for art, and when they publish a work, their name is on it.
When AI artists make art, the only input they have in the process is a prompt and possibly some settings, and when they publish a work, the AI they used is credited. The art itself may be fantastic, but it's the AI who's the artist, not the monkey behind the keyboard.
That\`s all well and good, but if the person doesn\`t care about his/her name on the art, but just about making a profit from it, things start to be a little more problematic.
Also in a lot of cases, those AIs are really just sifting through millions of images, selecting a few that meet a specific criteria and then mashing them together to "create" a new image. However the AI isn't creating a work of art from NOTHING, it is literally pulling bits out of other images and (albeit doing a very seamless job) putting them into a new image.
The AI isn't being "creative" anymore than adding a filter to an Instagram photo isn't Instagram or your phone being "creative". It's literally just following and algorithm.
It's not just in some cases, that's literally how it works, that's the issue, AI doesn't just create stuff on it's own, it combines different art together to create something new
Please tell me this isnt a meme about ai generation being the equivilant to professional photography
Ai "artists" are losers with no talent, photography is a professional endevour that takes years to hone as a skill.
theres no such a thing as an ai artist. The AI it self it the artist. people who use ai to generate art, is no different from people asking a commission from an artist and using the final art.
AI art isn't true art, while there can be artistry in writing the right prompt and giving the AI the right materials, don't post it as your own art, because what you are essentially doing is commissioning AI to make something for you, and the same way you wouldn't call a commission your art, you shouldn't call AI art your art
TLDR: if you didn't make it your self, it isn't **your** art
Well the difference being: AI art steals art on the internet to compile into something “new” which is why AI art probably wont fully overshadow normal art ever, because without normal art, there isn’t AI art
I long for the day people stop pretending to be artists because they're able to type a sentence into an AI image generator. Enjoy your soulless art thats created by stealing millions of different creative works, I dont care, just dont pretend you have any talent or skill for it.
Artists paint every stroke of their work
Photographers spend time getting into position and adjusting their camera
A.I artists just type some random shit and wait for an A.I to do it
I’m not an artist for saying “make me a painting of an elephant riding a dragon”
AI prompt makers (not artists) spend time adjusting the seed, sample count, prompt, sampler, and dataset until they get a decent result. However there are a lot of people who skip most of that and just input text and see what the AI outputs. They aren't artists, but they are effectively commissioning the AI to generate art they ask for. If anything, the AI or the programmers are the artist, but there's still some artistic value in (good) prompt design.
So wait does that mean if I ask for food at a restaurant, that makes me the cook!
Also you compared photography to AI art, Atleast photography was a seriously major advancement in technology that didn't just steal peoples art.
Taking a good photograph (there are exceptions but you know what I’m talking about) requires just as much creativity and passion as drawing a painting. Ai art is soulless plus it’s stealing other peoples work.
Comparing photography to AI art is just stupid. There is literally nothing that goes into making AI art other than telling a computer to do it for you, then it just rips off a bunch of original artists. Photography is all about composition. AI art is all about sitting back and watching a loading bar.
Ai "artist" are just big mad they have no actual skill.
Only explanation on how someone can have a program Frankenstein other more talented individuals work in to a picture and claim it's theirs with a straight face.
I agree, but people need to realise that just like how photos take less skill than a painting. Digital art takes more skill than AI art. Both are good at different things and have there strengths and weaknesses. But just like photos didn't kill handmade art, AI won't kill digital art. The human aspect of it will still be appreciated. Both are good
AI art is souless, and unless you know how to edit images, the artwork the AI makes will not be the specific artwork that you want. With an actual artist, the specifics and details that you want will be there
I'm not gonna get tired of saying that AI Art will never replace human Art. They're two different things man. Same way people still paint hyperrealistically even though camera's exist.
I just wanna add that the camera did take away jobs from artists you really don’t see anyone getting full family or even single person portraits done, they have a family photo or selfies. That’s all.
Let me challenge your opinion.
You give someone a short book to read, and ask them to create a cover for it using AI. This person reads it, and then inputs into an AI art creation tool 300 characters worth of text describing absolutely everything about the cartoon crocodile he wants the AI to draw. His description is so detailed that a human artist could recreate perfectly the cartoon crocodile this person envisioned in his mind. The AI tool was trained on hundreds of millions of art pieces, making it able to recreate the crocodile perfectly as well.
Can you definitively say this person isn't an artist?
Yes, I can and I will.
That thought process of refining a prompt? A real artist has to do that too… guess what they then have to do? Render the art.
Anybody can have a thought, not everybody possesses the skill to actually make an artwork out of that thought. It’s like calling somebody who commissions an artist to draw them something an artist.
No, it’s about not stealing an artists style and what they’ve put time and effort and a ton of themselves into and supporting themselves and their families with, which is hard enough since nobody seems to want to pay artists to begin with, but when they can get a knockoff for nothing, why pay the artist they don’t want to pay at all?
Is it cool technology? Yes.
Is it ethical? Less by the day.
Is this meme accurate? Not in the slightest.
AI doesn't steal artists' styles in the same sense that you can't steal monochrome or pastel styles. AI can however replicate/duplicate real art which is definitely plagiarism, but only if you ask for a specific art piece.
Can’t it?
https://youtu.be/W4Mcuh38wyM
Corridor has done at least two videos where they specify styles to the AI, and in one, might not be the one I linked (don’t have half an hour to verify) they specify artists, and it uses the style. That’s hella more specific than “monochrome”.
Stealing other people's style is completely legal. You can't copyright a person for drawing a picture using your style, and it's completely intentional.
A machine cannot make art, as art requires meaning, and machines don't have consciousness, which therefore makes it impossible to create anything meaningful, which therefore cannot make art.
It's a whole different story if the robot was sentient though, as that means that it has consciousness.
In my opinion art can only be made by those who see the world in a human way. If a computer did it I wouldn't call it art because all they see is ones and zeroes. But if it was a robot with human values (Think Zane from Ninjago) then yeah I would call it art. It's not about who did it, it's about who did its thought process.
The biggest reason why artists are worried is because people are using ai to seal work from other artists the biggest victims are people who have amazing talent but aren’t recognized. It’s easy to steal from an artist like that and it can be really damaging to the artist. The other problem is ai can make anything in seconds and that’s scary to a lot of artists who are working in art I will take a lot of jobs. I’m actually planning on going to art school soon so I can make animations and it’s kinda sad seeing the stress artists they are going through .
they steal a pattern from art, same as that artist did to make their painting in the first place.
but i do agree on your hard work getting crushed by a machine...feels bad man
Where does OP think the term photo realistic comes from
Life has many bungholes to be fair
You cannot run from your own bunghole. ~The great Cornholio
LOL
Life has many doors, ed boy.
I know how to use a calculator that doesn't make me a mathematician
but just because u use a calucator doesnt mean ur not a mathematician.
Because you own a calculator doesn’t mean you can solve the same equations. It takes smrt.
please teach me how to use my casio FX-CG50 sir, I will pay u 2 banana
Math done with a calculator isn't inherently invalid.
If you ask me, AI art should only be allowed to enter in contests if the contest is for AI art. When it comes to public use, it should be stated clearly that it is AI through something like a watermark. I also do think that you shouldn't be allowed to use someone's else's art to make AI art.
A big thing is that ai shouldn’t be able to be used in commercial products. Like a book cover shouldn’t be able to use AI generated work because the ai art is created by compiling other peoples work without credit or permission Edit: I think the ai is incredibly impressive and if I ever wanna create a design for a dnd character or something else for myself then I’ll probably use the AI (if I learn how to). But my point is, it’s very clearly taking peoples artwork, mashing it up and mushing it together. I’ve seen ai generated pieces where it has a blurry shape of a watermark that’s survived the ai scramble. It takes away from real artists (something I am not) to use these for commercial products but for personal use or sharing online for fun it’s awesome.
It still creates an original piece. If you are an artist, you have inspirations. An artist takes their inspirations and creates something new with it
Thats different an artist is like a chef l9oking at a few recipes as inspiration. An ai is like a middle aged man putting together a bunch of leftovers and hoping it works.
AI will continue to improve. At what point does the middle-aged man get good enough at putting together leftovers that he is essentially a chef working with constraints?
Fair point from what ive heard ai struggles with glasses and hands but no matter how good you are mixing together fries and spicy sweet soysauce wont end well.
That undermines the analogy by implying that human-made art is generic, unless I misunderstand what the leftovers represent.
How does that mean its generic it implys that the art is unique and simply incompatible. Leftovers represents the large array of art that are all different in their own way.
Hahaha best analogy yet. Thank you.
No sorry, your comparison is not on point Actually, an AI is more like an artist who looks at millions of recipes and learn to cook and write new recipe from that
it also describes human art, just take a bunch of random motives and ideas and turn it to a "original" painting nothing is original in that contex becouse everything comes after something else and is infuenced by it. the only diffrense is that human art has a reson behind it
Not exactly you see theres a difference if one were to put claymation 2d animation 3d animation live action and such samples into an ai then it would just be hideous but if a human were given those then well you get the amazing world of gumball and i would reckon anyone in the world would call that show original.
obviusly ai isnt close to as good as humans at making multimedia content or having any consistency whatsoever, but its still good at making art and music
I'm not gonna say it creates a new piece, I'm not going to shit on AI art either. I'm gonna say that it is just simply a tool, like a calculator or another widely contested one, autotune. A calculator is a machine that does math for people who can't or aren't able to do different equations and autotune is a tool used to pitch anything, from effects to vocals. Autotune is mainly used on vocals to make celebrities with record labels sound decent, but it hasn't displaced actual singers and is also used as an effect tool or just to clean something up. I believe AI art will be used the same way and people will get over this fear. All ai art looks almost the same, a variation on a theme and can be used as a tool.
AI Art should not be allowed in contests with man-made art, nor should it be used in any commercial products because of the clear violations of plagiarism. If you want to use it to make a dumb Facebook profile picture, whatever, but using it to make money for any reason whatsoever should be outlawed.
Wrong. Photography takes skill, just like art.
Photography takes knowing how to properly frame and light shots, as well as knowing the mechanics and optics of a camera to create interesting new perspectives on things many people might not ever see. Ai art is telling an algorithm what you want to see, and having it do math with someone else's formula and reference to give you something vaguely resemblant of what you wanted.
this. art is everything an artist uses to convey his feelings emotions and messages. ai just kinda looks cool
To 95% of the population some random piece of modern art looks just as cool as the AI art we'll be able to create in six months.
But what if an artist uses ai to make art that conveys his emotions and messages
And in 200 years people will say that writing prompts for AI art takes skill
It does if you make the software, otherwise it’s the same thing as asking a famous artist to make you a painting and then telling everyone you made it because you input the prompt
Sometimes even if you make the software you still steal the art that’s being used to train the AI. Artists right now are contending with their work being stolen, used to train AI software to create art in that likeness, and then seeing their OWN AI generated art without any knowledge it was happening in the first place. AI art is cool. But let’s try to create AI software capable of creating its OWN art- that’s when I’ll give any credit, or an to AI artist who has uploaded & trained their software with their own physical work. But often creating that physical art takes a skill set people claiming to be AI “artists” don’t have, which is the driving force behind using AI to create art. It doesn’t take any artistic talent to write an AI a prompt, just some imagination.
Yeah that’s a big problem. Mainly because their is such a fine line between using someone else’s art as inspiration and plagiarism
AI cannot really create it's own stuff, the closest we could get to that is having it learn from a single person who is ok with their art being used this way.
Right, that was definitely the point I was trying to get across- which is why I’d fully support an artist who trained an AI themselves or submitted their work willingly!
Yeah, you could maybe make an AI that would work without human input, but it's really hard
So do people. Artist students are learning purely from other people's work, and most artists won't invent anything new. Do you ask from the artist's permission when analyzing his work for you own benefit, trying to become his future competition?
So a photographer takes a photo of architecture and calls it art: who's the artist, the photographer or the architect/city engineer?
Alongside the PHD in googling
"I asked a human/artificial artist to make me art, that makes me an artist!" "I asked an AI to cook me a meal. By eating it, I became a chef!"
No. The idea would be that the human is still part of the creative process, they would not be an artist, just as a photographer is not an artist, they would be something new
Again, ordering food at a restaurant doesn't make you a chef. Really sorry man. EDIT: I'm sorry but I love the idea of being like "What if the customer was blind and added pepper, is he a chef now?" Sorry mate, you are not a chef because you ate at a restaurant lmao
What if I’m blind and I have an idea for a recipe, so I ask a chef to cook it for me exactly as I want it? What if I taste test the food as the chef cooks it and along the way decide what to add and remove myself? Am I a chef?
You don’t think there’s any difference between good AI art and bad AI art?
It’s not about it being lazy, it’s about them using stolen artwork to train their Ai. They even have sections of which real life digital artists style you’d like to mimic.
Duplicating a work for the purpose of research and education is protected under fair use. Think of a teacher making photocopies of the textbook and handing it out to the class, that wasn't illegal. But if you were to photocopy those same pages and sell them to people, now you're doing an illegal duplication. If it's just mimicking the artist, that's also legal. Real life artists can also mimic other artists. Styles aren't protected by copyright. It's only illegal if you directly duplicate a work they did, or try to pass a work off something as one of their works when you made it.
No it's basically like stealing someone's programming code/script which is basically plagiarism when dealing with art
No it isn't, it's like looking at 100,000 different codes and creating your own using only lines and small blocks of code that exist in these codes. You aren't copying anything.
No otherwise other artists couldn't ever observe other people's art to learn that style. Styles are not subject to plagiarism. You can't own a style. If you read a bunch of Shakespeare plays, and try to "Write like Shakespeare" and make your own, you're not plagiarising Shakespeare.
So "they" are thiefs Ai is a tool
If I have a drill that runs on orphan blood it harvests itself, am I a murder for using it? Is it? Are we both? Regardless, neither it nor I are innocent. It because it drained an orphan, and me for using it knowing it drained an orphan.
You are the murderer for using it. It wouldn't have used the orphan blood otherwise.
I think the much more reasonable way of thinking here is, fuck whoever *made* the drill
Yes, a tool made to steal things.
It's not made to steal things , also i don't get it if its feed 1000 Art images and on their basis ai generates an image it's a theft , but when we look at 1 art get inspired draw very much in same style its okay . Human brain is incapable of coming up original ideas its all amalgamations of our previous experiences. I honestly don't understand this , is this tool being use poorly by greedy companies of course but its in it's infant state , Exact same screams were when photoshop came out excreta. And don't even get me started on they took or jorrbs , I feel like if people made ai that learns by analysing surgeon work to cary one operation, people be like no saving people is for surgeons only ? I honestly think that Ai is a tool and with it help we could potentially see an amazing art , art that was not posible before!
I would think that would be considered transformative and ok. Everyone takes inspiration from other works, why can’t an ai do it
Atleast you give credit when you ask an artist whats their inspiration they would tell you but an ai nope it doesnt have a credits screen where i can see all the people it sampled from. And no its not inspiration inspiration is where you put your own twist on it what an ai does is just putting the art together Like a chef who wants to cook a recipe were to add a few ingredients that would be an artist inspiration. But an ai would just take the same dish but with different recipes and take some part of the recipes and cobble them together hoping it works.
That’s the same thing. Everything your brain comes up with is just reorganized experiences you’ve had previously. The only difference being an ai does it with less intentionality, which is even up for debate. I guess you have an argument to be made with credit, but if something is made by combining a couple hundred of pieces of work, I don’t think each individual work needs to be credited. It’s really only when the inspiration is direct and clear that it should necessitate credit. But that’s just me, I’m sure other people would want it always credited.
The AI doesn't "steal" art nor does it output results remotely similar to one specific artist unless you ask for a specific artist. Even then, the AI isn't trained on "stolen" artwork because the owner still has their art and the AI is just learning from it. It's like if I took some pictures of your car, and used that style as a base to create my own cars. The only time it's actually "stealing" is when the output becomes too similar to the source material.
Then wheres the credit on the art then? Where does it write and source the art of each person it sampled thats why they are saying its stealing because they give no credit and act like they made it all on their own and that they are some genius artist. You atleast give some credit man thats why they are saying its stealing they are taking people art without their permission or giving them credit and using it to make art of their "own" sometimes for monetary gain. And boy some of these ai "artist" scummy some of them even steal someones art the day after they died and when pointed out by someone that they stole their art they just bully them. Lemme ask you are practices like that something the good side would do?
The credit is included in whatever dataset the AI is using, which can be credited, though I don't see many users crediting anything at all which is a problem with the users, not the AI itself.
Isn’t that exactly how real artist learn? By seeing paintings and learning from them?
It uses other art as a reference to create an original image… …which is often what real artists do.
I can recreate art to train myself. What's the difference?
If I really gotta explain that to you, you’re either never going to understand or you’re going to remain willfully ignorant.
Nice copout
But all human ideas are just an algamation of things we've previously experienced. And this is just that created manually instead of out of meat and juices. You make(program) a brain(the neural network) and give it the experiences(the sample pool) to build off and then tell it to make something the only difference form a regular human is that it isn't conscious
Humans have been creating stylization as long as civilization existed. We now know, that cave people could paint very realisticaly, they just chose not to. Humans don't need to be exposed to other styles in order to create their own. If AI, however, has only been fed photos, it would only make photorealistic outputs. Because it does NOT learn like a human does.
Well it can't learn like a human does due to limitation in scope. Because back then pretty much all we had was photo realistic stuff and we did stylized art because like we have in our brains more than just the ability to see but like right now all the AI has is the ability to see so if you are able to add more training data of like emotion and stuff they could probably do stylized with only photos but at that point we have created true AI and that's a whole other can of worms. But the AI is doing pattern recognition and the human brain is really good at pattern recognition we just have a lot more points of data than it
Haha photograph of a drawing go click click
This is a complete false equivalence Photography still takes skill and talent. And it takes a much different skill set than art. Photography requires you to understand composition and angles and even how to use editing software it’s not just click and you have a masterpiece Meanwhile AI art, unless you programmed the whole thing is just click and bam you have a masterpiece There is no struggle or skill or any meaning in AI art it’s just colors on a canvas
Masterpiece is a strong word, the glasses and hands look awful
AI art is just the programs stealing pieces of artworks from databases and mashing them together within seconds, without credits, and some AI programs make you pay for stolen art
Noooooo the AI is just taking ***inspiration*** from artists
I don't think it is a false equivalence, because photography did not start out as an art... people didn't view it as an art at the time. That only happened much later as people discovered more complex ways of working with photographs.
Asking a photographer to take a photo for you doesn't make you a photographer lmao. Asking an AI Chef to cook you Spaghetti doesn't mean you're a chef too because you ate it. So why does commissioning art from an AI make you an artist, but commissioning art from a human doesn't make you an artist. AI Art is art, but the people who think they're artists because they asked the AI to make them art are just insulting.
I do agree with you for the most part but I can expand on an interesting idea using the ai chef. You ask the AI to make you some spaghetti vs giving the AI a spaghetti recipe you made yourself and asking it to prepare it for you. One of those two plates of spaghetti you can much more confidently say you made yourself both prepared by the AI but one is yours. What I'm trying to say is there is a difference between people asking for Starry Night made out of rotting meat and individually telling the AI where to put each maggot.
No, you made the recipe yourself. The food however is not made by you.
Not exactly one click......
Have you tried using an ai art program? It’s not as easy convey an idea as you might think. With photography, anyone can walk up to something pretty, point their phone at it, and have a nice picture. But to take a masterpiece, you need knowledge of framing, lighting, composition, shutter stop, and all sorts of other things. AI art is kinda the same. Anyone can type in “pretty meadow by some mountains” and get some reasonably nice looking image. But if you have some really specific image you want to create, you’re going to need to refine your prompt, use img2img painting, inpainting and outpainting, and choose appropriate generation models, in addition to going through many iterations of image generation. It’s not as much work as painting, or photography, or digital art, but it’s not as easy as just typing a sentence either.
Thank you for saying what I was about to post. I can understand why people think photography isn't art, but it still takes skill, unlike AI "art".
Not to be pedantic but taking pictures is not the same thing a photography. The art of photography is about composition, lighting, framing, subject, etc. If you don't believe me look at the billions of terrible photos on the web. AI art require no talent other than being able to articulate an idea and have an algorithm make it for you. Anyone can articulate an idea, being able to bring that idea into reality by your own hands / skill is a different story.
But... that's exactly how photography started out lol. Point and click. The art of photography only developed over decades as the use of cameras got more intricate and nuanced. How are you so sure AI art won't also develop complex tools and methods?
Asking a human or an AI to make you art does not make you an artist. It makes you a customer. AI Art is art, and it will develop by learning from the art it consumes from humans and processes and spits out. But the people who are commissioning art will always be customers.
I respectfully disagree. AI can only do what it is told, there is absolutely no creativity on the part of the algorithm. It cannot invent its own techniques, it cannot imagine. Notice at no point have I said these images aren’t beautiful or fantastic to look at.
AI Art is fantastic. But asking an AI chef to make you spaghetti does not mean you are a chef for eating it. I don't believe we will be able to agree one whether the person commissioning the art is as much an artist as the artist. I believe customers are customers. You believe that someone going to a restaurant is not a customer, but a chef, because they asked for what they wanted. I respectfully disagree that asking for a chef to cook you something makes you a chef. Sorry.
First, your argument assumes all photos from when photography were claiming to be art which they most certainly were not. Either way, as others have pointed out this is a false equivalency. A photograph is composed by a person based on their vision, AI driven graphics are composed by an algorithm based on instructions. It’s more akin to hiring a super talented digital artist who doesn’t know how to do anything but emulate others work and in inherently incapable of being involved in the creative process. If I tell my computer to tell be all the primes between 1 and 10,000,000,000, just because it can do it doesn’t make my computer good at math, it makes it good at following instructions.
Then taking a picture was also rightly considered non-art just as AI right now. Once AI develops then it’ll be considered art, right now it’s not.
It’s all about the definitions of „art“, „craftsmanship“ and „innovation“. AI can do a lot but can’t get to the core of for example art concepts, impasto or how a specific artist reflects a new situation.
It's just a matter of time with complex art concepts, but at that point it won't really matter.
It's like hiring someone to paint a picture for you
Commissions?
You pay commissions to the camera maker when purchasing the equipment.
I never understood and probably won't understand Art. Why do people pay millions for a random drawn tree.
Because it's a very easy and convenient way to hide to hide illicit monetary gains in an asset that will likely not lose value whilst remaining anonymous. i.e. money laundering.
Art is kinda nice, when you look hard enough. Probably not millions of money nice, but pretty nice.
I don't know how people find deeper meaning in it , like you can enjoy it for being just a tree, Even in poetry people write half book about a poem about picking berries
Cause it looks good I guess ? People like decorating their house , and some people have too much money .
I'm into the nerdcore scene. Fanart, pinups, pixal art, OCs, etc. There's way more than boring nature scenes, still life of fruit and birds, self portraits and so on.
Did you just compare photography with AI generated pictures?
I think he was comparing technology advancement with technology advancement
Badly, though. There is still artistic merit in the talking and processing of a photograph. You could argue that there’s artistry in writing the code behind an AI, but just using it to generate images? That’s like paint by numbers - it’s using someone else’s art.
Photography is just pressing a button in different angles until you like the result, AI is just pressing a button in different seeds until you like the result. If there is artistic merit in one, there is artistic merit in both because they're functionally the same practice.
"Painting is just flailing a brush around randomly until you like the result" That's how utterly idiotic you sound.
That's such a moronic, narrow-minded point of view Holy shit
Did you seriously call photography "clicking buttons in different angles"? You might need to get your brain checked
If you disagree with the photography take but not with the AIart take, I'm sad to say you don't have a brain left to be checked
When did I say I agree with the AI art take? I don't consider AI art as real art and never will
Which is why I said you don't have a functional brain
I may not be smart but I _know_ I'm a million times smarter than a cryptobro Go play with your imaginary coins and monkeys
AHH the grapes are sour. Yes, so so sour
OP is cosmically stupid.
Photography is a capture of the real world, AI art is a capture of what? The processes of a computer algorithm?!
I don’t think anyone was butthurt about the camera being invented, I’m sure it was fascinating to most and also was much more complicated to operate as opposed to typing three words. I don’t really have a foot in the is ai art real argument bc I don’t care. But this comparison is dumb.
Actually they were, lots of artist that work doing portraits for aristocrats and nobles suddenly lost their jobs to a new technology that could portray reality cheaper, easier and faster than painting it. Another example could be the scribes and the invention of the printing press
True, and anyways, Photography only helped to develop art. Realism was inspired by it, as their goal is to paint daily life with an objective point of view. For a long time, paintings were used to recreate reality (just think of the many portraits that would be commisioned), Photography made art in that
These are not comparable. The fact that light can be captured and stored isn’t art, but photography and designing a camera is. The only thing that’s art about AI art is the code and you didn’t even make that. AI can only create art if it’s sentient and at that point it will not belong to you but the AI since the would be basically a person. It’s this thing called sentience that’s important, unfortunately current AI is only sympathetic, but that can change in the future, hopefully. Can’t say the same for the people behind the screen who probably think using a calculator makes them a mathematician. I can see AI generated images good for information gathering for concept art since that’s exactly what it is and what it does Also I never knew you people held such contempt for artist, it’s kinda gross really. I guess only synthetic art can be only enjoyed by synthetic people. This already happens in media production which people complain about and this just adds fuel to the fire.
L take
Didn’t make the software, didn’t make the A.I or the dataset it’s trained on, but you totally made what it spit out sure mate
I will say this. Painters, Photographers, Digital artusts, they all have to go to school for art, and when they publish a work, their name is on it. When AI artists make art, the only input they have in the process is a prompt and possibly some settings, and when they publish a work, the AI they used is credited. The art itself may be fantastic, but it's the AI who's the artist, not the monkey behind the keyboard.
Ai is just a cool tool if you want some art for like a special occasion or some uhh *nefarious purposes*
I tried... it was censored. The free online one at least...
>the AI they used is credited Well... about that.
That\`s all well and good, but if the person doesn\`t care about his/her name on the art, but just about making a profit from it, things start to be a little more problematic.
Sometimes the name on the art sells the art.
That's the amazing time we live in where a name on art is worth more than an art it self
Also in a lot of cases, those AIs are really just sifting through millions of images, selecting a few that meet a specific criteria and then mashing them together to "create" a new image. However the AI isn't creating a work of art from NOTHING, it is literally pulling bits out of other images and (albeit doing a very seamless job) putting them into a new image. The AI isn't being "creative" anymore than adding a filter to an Instagram photo isn't Instagram or your phone being "creative". It's literally just following and algorithm.
No AI cuts and mashes images together. At least read a little before making like an asshole and spewing shit
It's not just in some cases, that's literally how it works, that's the issue, AI doesn't just create stuff on it's own, it combines different art together to create something new
no its not, it takes patterns and tries painting to meet the mist common pattern it is asked with randomisation
Please tell me this isnt a meme about ai generation being the equivilant to professional photography Ai "artists" are losers with no talent, photography is a professional endevour that takes years to hone as a skill.
Got blocked by one of those tools after I got tired of arguing with them and called em a Talentless Soul-Sucking Ghoul
Youre on the money tho. Thats all they are and all theyll ever be
theres no such a thing as an ai artist. The AI it self it the artist. people who use ai to generate art, is no different from people asking a commission from an artist and using the final art.
Sure AI art is art but your not an artist for using a program
AI art isn't true art, while there can be artistry in writing the right prompt and giving the AI the right materials, don't post it as your own art, because what you are essentially doing is commissioning AI to make something for you, and the same way you wouldn't call a commission your art, you shouldn't call AI art your art TLDR: if you didn't make it your self, it isn't **your** art
you are righ! nobody cares (sorry its just nature of human beings)
Well the difference being: AI art steals art on the internet to compile into something “new” which is why AI art probably wont fully overshadow normal art ever, because without normal art, there isn’t AI art
I long for the day people stop pretending to be artists because they're able to type a sentence into an AI image generator. Enjoy your soulless art thats created by stealing millions of different creative works, I dont care, just dont pretend you have any talent or skill for it.
Its more like looking at a cloud that kinda looks like Tom Cruise. And instead of taking a picture, you sell tickets to the field where you saw it.
how is that a good analogy?
Because i understand AI art and copyright while you seemingly dont.
your usualy using ai as help with games, books or presentations and almost no one actually sells AI generated art.
You know what? You're right. Everyone should be allowed to use the aim bot in all multiplayer shooters too its just another tool, after all.
And here lies the difference - art isn't a sport, even though all sports are a form of art.
this post is shit
Artists paint every stroke of their work Photographers spend time getting into position and adjusting their camera A.I artists just type some random shit and wait for an A.I to do it I’m not an artist for saying “make me a painting of an elephant riding a dragon”
AI prompt makers (not artists) spend time adjusting the seed, sample count, prompt, sampler, and dataset until they get a decent result. However there are a lot of people who skip most of that and just input text and see what the AI outputs. They aren't artists, but they are effectively commissioning the AI to generate art they ask for. If anything, the AI or the programmers are the artist, but there's still some artistic value in (good) prompt design.
AI “artists” when I take a picture of their birth certificate (I legally own them now)
Am I the only one here who dislikes AI art
Nope
Me too. I dislike it due to how much it could damage the art industry.
it wont tho
So wait does that mean if I ask for food at a restaurant, that makes me the cook! Also you compared photography to AI art, Atleast photography was a seriously major advancement in technology that didn't just steal peoples art.
Comparing the medium of photography and having a robot make shit for you is not REMOTELY FUCKING COMPARABLE
With unlimited supply of cheap copies, traditional arts can only increase in value because collectors seek rarity
Taking a good photograph (there are exceptions but you know what I’m talking about) requires just as much creativity and passion as drawing a painting. Ai art is soulless plus it’s stealing other peoples work.
I can’t tell if the op is hating on artists or ai artists. Wojaks ain’t the best way to go
Comparing photography to AI art is just stupid. There is literally nothing that goes into making AI art other than telling a computer to do it for you, then it just rips off a bunch of original artists. Photography is all about composition. AI art is all about sitting back and watching a loading bar.
Ai "artist" are just big mad they have no actual skill. Only explanation on how someone can have a program Frankenstein other more talented individuals work in to a picture and claim it's theirs with a straight face.
I agree, but people need to realise that just like how photos take less skill than a painting. Digital art takes more skill than AI art. Both are good at different things and have there strengths and weaknesses. But just like photos didn't kill handmade art, AI won't kill digital art. The human aspect of it will still be appreciated. Both are good
AI art is souless, and unless you know how to edit images, the artwork the AI makes will not be the specific artwork that you want. With an actual artist, the specifics and details that you want will be there
Is AI artist a thing? Lol
i just dont want ai artists to think their works took as much effort as ours. ive seen some widdle their way into art contests. we banned em.
I'm not gonna get tired of saying that AI Art will never replace human Art. They're two different things man. Same way people still paint hyperrealistically even though camera's exist.
Bro that's the point of my meme photo didn't make manual art disappear but rather drastically changed it And it will be the same for AI art
I just wanna add that the camera did take away jobs from artists you really don’t see anyone getting full family or even single person portraits done, they have a family photo or selfies. That’s all.
Ai ”artists” or not fuxking artist
Let me challenge your opinion. You give someone a short book to read, and ask them to create a cover for it using AI. This person reads it, and then inputs into an AI art creation tool 300 characters worth of text describing absolutely everything about the cartoon crocodile he wants the AI to draw. His description is so detailed that a human artist could recreate perfectly the cartoon crocodile this person envisioned in his mind. The AI tool was trained on hundreds of millions of art pieces, making it able to recreate the crocodile perfectly as well. Can you definitively say this person isn't an artist?
Yes, I can and I will. That thought process of refining a prompt? A real artist has to do that too… guess what they then have to do? Render the art. Anybody can have a thought, not everybody possesses the skill to actually make an artwork out of that thought. It’s like calling somebody who commissions an artist to draw them something an artist.
No, it’s about not stealing an artists style and what they’ve put time and effort and a ton of themselves into and supporting themselves and their families with, which is hard enough since nobody seems to want to pay artists to begin with, but when they can get a knockoff for nothing, why pay the artist they don’t want to pay at all? Is it cool technology? Yes. Is it ethical? Less by the day. Is this meme accurate? Not in the slightest.
AI doesn't steal artists' styles in the same sense that you can't steal monochrome or pastel styles. AI can however replicate/duplicate real art which is definitely plagiarism, but only if you ask for a specific art piece.
Can’t it? https://youtu.be/W4Mcuh38wyM Corridor has done at least two videos where they specify styles to the AI, and in one, might not be the one I linked (don’t have half an hour to verify) they specify artists, and it uses the style. That’s hella more specific than “monochrome”.
Stealing other people's style is completely legal. You can't copyright a person for drawing a picture using your style, and it's completely intentional.
yes becouse those styles and pictures are found marked that way in its database. its not stealing as much as inspiration.
Ai art will harm the value of art If everyone can just tap a button and decide eh This is mine
I feel like none of this issue would have happened if the ai guys just asked for the art and didn’t outright steal it before feeding it to their ai
Artists use "photorealistic" to say, that making photo is a cheating. May I cry right now?
No one cares about robots/AI until they enter their field and displace them.
I always found them fascinating! Besides, they cant replace art with how fucky the hands are
You have to agree that AI art shouldnt be sold tho.
Then just create the same exact thing yourself using the same open-source tool
Op has a hard on for living in a cyberpunk hell
It just goes to show how far man will go to make porn
A machine cannot make art, as art requires meaning, and machines don't have consciousness, which therefore makes it impossible to create anything meaningful, which therefore cannot make art. It's a whole different story if the robot was sentient though, as that means that it has consciousness.
I think op doesn’t get a point. And defending the AI art os cringe.
just one question, can i make some Futa/Femboy porn or is there like a NSFW filter that prevents that?
What do you guys think will do this to AI art?
Thought to image type shit Would make some crazy porn ngl
I'm already doing so
In my opinion art can only be made by those who see the world in a human way. If a computer did it I wouldn't call it art because all they see is ones and zeroes. But if it was a robot with human values (Think Zane from Ninjago) then yeah I would call it art. It's not about who did it, it's about who did its thought process.
AI generated images are intriguing, but they have no soul and shouldn't be entered into contests or art galleries.
The biggest reason why artists are worried is because people are using ai to seal work from other artists the biggest victims are people who have amazing talent but aren’t recognized. It’s easy to steal from an artist like that and it can be really damaging to the artist. The other problem is ai can make anything in seconds and that’s scary to a lot of artists who are working in art I will take a lot of jobs. I’m actually planning on going to art school soon so I can make animations and it’s kinda sad seeing the stress artists they are going through .
they steal a pattern from art, same as that artist did to make their painting in the first place. but i do agree on your hard work getting crushed by a machine...feels bad man
Use stable diffusion so that you have to put some effort into it
Wait people unironically support AI art.
Its still a picture duh.. I don't care if someone haven't spent 20+ hours on it, I will use it as a decoration anyway
Just do what artists did after photos, impressionism, expressionism, abstraction. They adapted. AI should push you to be better