Context: this and post #5902367 are referencing this image, which is currently being spammed on ArtStation and DeviantArt in protest of those sites' decisions not to ban AI art on their platforms.
AI is a tool like Photoshop. Only difference is you type instead of using a mouse and tell it to draw a geometric shape, layer a region or brush a delimited area. That makes it quite limited in complexity but it compensates in speed. You want to paywall a pair of boobs so you can charge 10 dollars for it? Too bad, AI can now fix that with a prompt. But not everything is lost, AI can't make decisions on their own, human creativity makes a big part for artists to succeed over AI generated art. People like good stories and designs out of the conventional, make your creation interesting instead of only coloring body parts to pretend they wear clothes. Artists earning money that just know how to draw naked bodies shouldn't be a bussiness in the first place.
AI is a tool like Photoshop. Only difference is you type instead of using a mouse and tell it to draw a geometric shape, layer a region or brush a delimited area. That makes it quite limited in complexity but it compensates in speed. You want to paywall a pair of boobs so you can charge 10 dollars for it? Too bad, AI can now fix that with a prompt. But not everything is lost, AI can't make decisions on their own, human creativity makes a big part for artists to succeed over AI generated art. People like good stories and designs out of the conventional, make your creation interesting instead of only coloring body parts to pretend they wear clothes. Artists earning money that just know how to draw naked bodies shouldn't be a bussiness in the first place.
So you want the people who make all the porn you fap to do it for free? Wow, entitlement much?
How many times are you going to post this same bad, reductive take?
He's not necessarily wrong if you use it for a reference before doing a drawing rather than just use the Ai art on its own wholesale. Personally, I think it does pretty decent for background shots. As for shading, its laughable.
I would go so far as to say as it isn't really an artist tool so much as the artist itself. In terms of it being "your" art, it's as much your art as a piece you commissioned an artist for. Sure, you came up with the idea, but you handed off that idea to someone- or something- else entirely. You didn't contribute a single thing beyond the prompt. As far as I'm concerned, you can't really claim it's your art.
It gets more complicated if you then alter the generated art, but the base piece still isn't actually your work and shouldn't be claimed as such. I also have a huge issue if the AI copies a specific artist's style and it's passed off as belonging to that artist, and especially if it just spits out a copy of their work in response to a prompt.
Not to mention, pretty sure people are just taking AI art and putting it behind paywalls as well, which also ties into my issues with claiming it as their own work but I've already talked about that. You're going to find AI generated porn behind paywalls because, surprise surprise, sex sells. Which is why artists use it to generate income in the first place. The advent of AI art isn't going to change that.
I feel like the best use for AI-generated images is as inspiration. Use the outputs as a rough guide or a starting point for something you draw yourself, in your own style, instead of just posting the output itself. A computer could produce things that someone might not have even thought about otherwise.
I feel like the best use for AI-generated images is as inspiration. Use the outputs as a rough guide or a starting point for something you draw yourself, in your own style, instead of just posting the output itself. A computer could produce things that someone might not have even thought about otherwise.
But what do I know, I'm not an artist.
Yep, I can see ai-assisted like photo-referenced and derivative work. While I dislike accounts popping up and down spreading AI images like they're real artists, I don't care about IP and the usage of AI because of the internet and technology won't change. Artists will adapt in given time for sure though.
EDIT: Changed my words in case people think I'm all for AI for some reason.
Also those that complain are people who draw other copyrights without giving any money back to the original holders that planned, created and developed the character they are selling like a self work. Now you know how it feels to be "referenced" while someone else earns the money from your work. Be coherent and don't do that for business.
Just like porn on Internet, art is insanely large and available for free I wouldn't pay for a paywall ever, but everyone is free to waste their money as they please wherever they like.
Even far before the plague of AI generated images, I used to think that artificial intelligence can do harm upon humanity. And they proved it. Society should not treat art in the same way as mass-produced goods like stamped steel firearms. The whole site approves this message!
Even far before the plague of AI generated images, I used to think that artificial intelligence can do harm upon humanity. And they proved it. Society should not treat art in the same way as mass-produced goods like stamped steel firearms. The whole site approves this message!
Sweet, another downvote I deserved getting for saying an opinion.
Just because there is freedom of expression on Danbooru, does not mean you have immunity to criticism, should you have an opinion. Whether you get a downvote or upvote is up to the general public's opinion on your opinion.
Just because there is freedom of expression on Danbooru, does not mean you have immunity to criticism, should you have an opinion. Whether you get a downvote or upvote is up to the general public's opinion on your opinion.
Thank you for understanding. I acknowledge it. But in fact that it seems that I am more likely to get arrows down more than other users here, despite what I stated here is very supportive of others' views (against AI art). And I have no means to leave disrespectful and offensive comments. Maybe this is caused from senseless negative feedbacks on my profile due to my past commenting sin a month ago, therefore users would trust another less than any others.
Thank you for understanding. I acknowledge it. But in fact that it seems that I am more likely to get arrows down more than other users here, despite what I stated here is very supportive of others' views (against AI art). And I have no means to leave disrespectful and offensive comments. Maybe this is caused from senseless negative feedbacks on my profile due to my past commenting sin a month ago, therefore users would trust another less than any others.
There is a reason the saying: 'First Impressions count the most,' gets thrown about a lot everywhere.
And I have no means to leave disrespectful and offensive comments. Maybe this is caused from senseless negative feedbacks on my profile due to my past commenting sin a month ago, therefore users would trust another less than any others.
I do agree with what rom_collector said about how AI image generation is a tool.
But I disagree with its current implementation. Naturally, the one abusing the AI's ability to rehash a thousand different versions of an image within the time you finish picking your nose is the problem. In fact, this reminds me of the good ol' Traditional Art vs Digital Art argument way back when Photoshop was just making headway in the arts industry.
Oh, yes. There was also that time over on deviantArt about Fair Use and Copyright. We got the Creative Commons out of that.
The problem with current AI-generated images is the dataset itself they are using as their library. The issue with Fair Use is already a problem. While Midjourney doesn't seem to be having actively grifting artists without their consent, it appears AI image generators based on the Stable Diffusion model doesn't care where it gets its images from. And it doesn't care who it takes from.
See the problem?
The dataset doesn't care if the image is copyright or not. And even worse, the humans using it cares even less.
And that is where the problem lies.
If the AI image generator only samples from a known source of images that's been flagged and released as free to use (stock photo sites or free art asset sites) there wouldn't be this problem. And when the artists themselves can simply flag their images/tags as "Do Not Use" and the AI obeys this criteria, we won't be seeing any of this problem. Since the dataset contained images that the owners has allowed for use, no one would care what the images would be used for.
We didn't see any problems with AI generated images coming out of Midjourney. I wonder what happened to the Stable Diffusion AI models.
P.S., I refuse to call these "AI generated art" as they are merely the visual form of a Word Salad. Put shit into a box, rattle it enough times and you'll somehow think you can see a perfect rendition of La Pieta rendered with sunflower seeds.
A painful reality of our society nowdays. It's somehow similar to "Attacking the messenger, not the message" .
Stop trying to justify yourself and give it up already. You’re just making yourself look like an absolute dingus as you die on this hill you and you alone stand on.
Go comment on some political post and let everyone there know you’re right wing, seems to be the only thing you do really.
It's somehow similar to "Attacking the messenger, not the message" .
In this case, the message is so insidious and repugnant to a healthy society that the most appropriate response is to make the messenger feel as unwelcome as possible. Fascists and their ilk do not belong here, no matter how civil and reasonable they pretend to be.
In this case, the message is so insidious and repugnant to a healthy society that the most appropriate response is to make the messenger feel as unwelcome as possible. Fascists and their ilk do not belong here, no matter how civil and reasonable they pretend to be.
It is not a good thing to call people who disagree with buzzwords like such.
Arstation isn't supposed to be a more "serious" site in terms of being a portafolio to get projects, compared to Deviantart a more "entry level" site.
The former allowing AI is a problem that can sting on the bad side a more professional artist wanting to present their works without having to deal with the "baggage" of Pixiv or the fame of sewer of deviantart.
Beyond that, AI is more a tool than a problem, once artist can put a hard coded ban to use their images in the AI databases, things are going to be business as usual.
As much as I sympathize with artists and find the usage of their works as training data without their permission scummy at best, I believe the process of using machine learning to produce graphic assets cannot be realistically stopped.
The artists that will thrive in the future are those who will adapt and use it to gain competitive advantage. Stable Diffusion may be stopped now, but people now know what machine learning is capable of and it's just a matter of time until more advanced algorithms are introduced to new products.
The market needs graphic assets and mass producing them in a comparatively short time with passable quality makes economic sense. We cannot really rely on businesses moral standards hoping they will be willing to spend more money in order to get "organic" art from flesh and bone artists for their needs.
I see dark times ahead. It will be great for those who consume those assets like end users who don't really care about where their pictures come from but it will ravage the already saturated graphic art sector.
As much as I sympathize with artists and find the usage of their works as training data without their permission scummy at best, I believe the process of using machine learning to produce graphic assets cannot be realistically stopped.
The artists that will thrive in the future are those who will adapt and use it to gain competitive advantage. Stable Diffusion may be stopped now, but people now know what machine learning is capable of and it's just a matter of time until more advanced algorithms are introduced to new products.
The market needs graphic assets and mass producing them in a comparatively short time with passable quality makes economic sense. We cannot really rely on businesses moral standards hoping they will be willing to spend more money in order to get "organic" art from flesh and bone artists for their needs.
I see dark times ahead. It will be great for those who consume those assets like end users who don't really care about where their pictures come from but it will ravage the already saturated graphic art sector.
Professional artists already do this even before the advent of AI image generation.
I don't have a horse in this race, but the whole discussion about AI-generated art being a kit-bash of preexisting art feels like an extension of the argument for/against sampling in music.
And when the artists themselves can simply flag their images/tags as "Do Not Use" and the AI obeys this criteria,
in my country, theres actually a law for exactly that, if the data of the image contains a opt out - written in machine readable code - then they technically are not allowed to use them
