Not only that, it is meant for professional portfolios and networking, people care about the skill of the person, AI just makes this harder, regardless of anyone's opinion on AI itself.
Even outside of an moralistic issues, it makes no sense to post AI generated art on Artstation because of the portfolio thing. When an artist posts art on there, they are saying "this is what I can do". When people post AI generations on there, all it does is advertise that generator. Like, no one is going to hire you because you're a "prompt engineer". Anyone can do that. If they were going to do it they would just use in-house people and go use the same AI thing you did.
It's the equivalent of someone buying a commission and then posting that art on artstation. You didnt make that. Someone else did. The fact that it was your idea means nothing.
"Actually I worked really hard on that prompt. I spent literally tens of minutes refining it and refining it until it scraped the right artists in the right manner"
That’s honestly the dumbest take I’ve ever heard. People still have to put actual work into photography. And even it would get screwed by AI because they can totally generate photos now.
There is no difference in being an "AI 'Artist'" and being a "Commission Artist". If I were to tell you I was a commission artist, and I make 'my' art by paying somebody else to produce it for me, editing it in photoshop, and claiming it was mine, I'd rightfully be accused of stealing. I wish these mindless troglodytes could get this through their skulls.
Yep I’ve made this analogy before. If anyone could just ask others to make art for them, then claim that they’re the “artists”, then all my clients are artists.
The funny thing about prompts and "prompt engineers" as they call themselves is that they can be made literally obsolete within days. Just like how art was stolen to train an ai model, prompts can be taken to train a language model where literally anyone can type in what they want and it will come up with a perfect output
What if I use deep dream to alter a picture I've created with another set of pictures I've created? I see the issue with AI generated art, but I feel like AI can still have it's place in digital art since you can feed it your own images instead of prompting it to use other's art.
this is what people are trying to argue for, the concept of AI generated images in itself isn't bad. It's just all of these people insistent on replacing artists with it, doubled with the current lack for proper copyright laws for AI.
I'm no artist myself but use cases like described I'd argue are valid. You're using a creative tool to manipulate your own art in a unique way, no different than using some digital apps built in filters to automatically modify bits for you based on your own parameters.
I'm pretty sure some companies will eventually start hiring prompt engineers to cut on labour costs and some people are better than others at it. However, that does not mean Artstation is the place for it. If photography is not allowed in Artstation neither should AI art. They can make their own page for prompt portfolios.
Me and my friend like to test stuff with characters by ripping stuff from FFXIV. Its a lot of fun but also isn't like we are posting them to our portfolios.
Funniest thing I’ve seen recently was a post of someone asking how to fix the terribly generated hand on their overall beautiful wizard drawing.
It would be so simple just to redraw it, but of course you can’t lol.
This 100%, I was taught my first semester in college of how important it is to share my work through art station, having AI images makes it hard to search for actual work
This whole debate brings me back 20 years ago with procedural art, more specifically fractals. AI art is just a subset of procedural art at the end of it. I have been using stable diffusion to create textures and it is pretty much the same workload as apophysis. Pick a model,find a interesting seed, check that seed on different diffusion algorithms, and fine tune it afterwards.
I can definitely understand the frustration with low quality AI work , but there is potential for amazing works of art to be created out there, we just need to let it mature for a bit.
I see now, I didn't think about this aspect of it. I am not sure about mind journey as I don't use it. But even stable diffusion has a term about not using the AI to produce ilegal content, so I would believe that mind journey would have something similar , and producing work that breaks copyright would fall into that. I think we will end up in the situation that we already are, with cloud computing services not allowing for the reproduction of copyrightable material, but we will have open source stuff that will definitely be able to do it and the only legal course would be to go after people that actually publish such things.
It is a lot easier to "steal someone style" with Stable Diffusion now, it is possible to train "mini models" and use them in conjunction with other models, so for example you can train a model with your pictures and then get amazing results with prompts that like "me as iron man fighting thor" . I am a pessimist, so I believe any safeguard regarding this sort of thing will be ultimately useless in terms of preventing images from being used in a training set, we are already too far into development to prevent that.
For example this model does that for the "disney style" [https://civitai.com/models/24/modern-disney](https://civitai.com/models/24/modern-disney)
, also beware when browsing this website as there is a lot of NSFW), the link is SFW btw.
Exactly. It's low-quality at the moment because it's still new and shiny and the latest hotness, and everyone is dipping their toe in that water. Give it a couple of years and AI output will be just one more tool in the digital artist's toolbox.
Yeah but that's different, no one is saying you can't use prompts or even other people's work in your art (asset packs exist for a good reason), the problem is stopping there.
In your case you used it as a starting point, but added your own work and interpretation, you made something, we can actually look at how good you are at exactly what you added, that makes it portfolio worthy.
But some people are just posting the AI piece and nothing else, no editing, not making anything based off the art, how is that different from graving something royalty free from Google images? Write a prompt, get a picture and post it. What skill can be evaluated from that, we can't even be sure if they're great with the AI, or just got lucky and got something that looked cool.
But the art there isn't the concept art but the stuff you put time and effort into, making an actual game. Saying "here's some concept art I used to give myself a starting point" is wildly different to "here's the results of some prompts"
Yeah, it's this - the artstation people are pissed at the content turning up that was trained off their art without their permission. It's a real slap in the face.
Also comparing machine learning to an artist imitating and adapting is one thing but machines don't sleep and at this rate 99% of content on the internet is just going to be generated by a server farm somewhere.
Not to forget that a lot of those AI "Art" Generators get trained with Art from real Artists, without them ever getting noticed, credited or compensated.
From a legal or perhaps philosophical perspective, is that different from someone deliberately training themselves to emulate the style of a particular existing artist? Are styles copyrightable?
> Because the site is for art made by artists.
Which then becomes a case of OK, where do you draw the line? Is photography not art because, in the simplest of cases, it's point and click? How do you determine what level of human labor in a piece is and is not acceptable, and how do you tell if a piece reaches that standard, if you only have the piece itself to consider?
If someone uses an AI tool to generate an image, then does their best to manually replicate that image in watercolor, oils, or some other medium, is it art?
Just saying that if people can't give a definition other than "I know it when I see it", there's always going to be argument about what should and shouldn't be considered art... or at least what should or shouldn't be uploaded to Artstation, I guess.
I understand the larger conversation of what qualifies as art is complicated. However in this instance it is not. The issue is someone typing a sentence, getting a random image and posting the result on a website meant for artists to show their ability in specific disciplines and software's. Doing the equivalent of a google search is not par for the course of working artists.
But lots of people aren't just getting a random image, plenty of people are doing various post processing and other techniques for the really 'wow' aspect?
If you just say a prompt and post the picture as-is. That's understandably a bit less controversal .
But there are tons of AI assisted tools (inpainting/outcropping), replacing small segments piece by piece, training subsets, doing traditional photoshop and other touch up things too. At what point does it count as human and not some artist kitbashing things together?
If you commission an artist and tell them you want "An astronaut riding a horse", and they then paint an image satisfying that description, does that make you the artist?
Problem is, even with the opt out, they'll still use your art, and themselves state that they can't guarantee your artworks won't be used for AI art generation.
It seemed disingenuous to me. During the time they assumed opt in by default, they trained their algorithm on all the art they could. Changing their tune later doesn't un-train the algorithm, so no real change took place. It seemed like a way to save face rather than genuine concern over the issue their users were concerned about
That's always going to happen when a new tool or technique debuts. Everyone jumps in and uses it for everything because it's the new hotness, then its popularity fades and it eventually becomes just one more item in everyone's toolbox.
They gave up on that idea a few hours after the announcement. It's opt-in now.
They also added a button that switches on/off for all deviations at once two hours in due to the backlash.
But yeah, it was a dumb idea in the first place.
China just made watermarks mandatory on all AI generated content.
[relevant ARS Technica article](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/china-bans-ai-generated-media-without-watermarks/)
This is not what is happening to OP's question dude. What OP is asking about is a form of protest by users on Artstation to push back against AI art generation.
You can sometimes use AI to detect if an image was generated with AI. Not sure if anyone figured out how to do that yet with the diffusion models, but it was pretty easy back when it was all about GANs.
I find this whole situation so funny. All these artists pissed that a computer can generate stuff that resembles theirs. I will continue using ai art indefinitely, and shouldn't have any watermarks. It's not a copyright violation as you cannot copyright a 'style'. Copyright law protects finished works of art. It does not protect things like facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct. The part I find the most funny is these artists crying that their work is stolen, yet I can ALMOST guarantee 90% of them have pirated a movie, music, or game in the past. And that is actually illegal, this is a perfectly legal tool that should be used as a tool.
As far as I can tell the problem this protest is about is that people are geberating images in seconds and uploading them to websites where people are trying to show the work they put many hours into.
Tool? yes. Generate and pass of as self made art? No!
Ah I see. I didn't think anyone would honestly be trying to pass it off as their own. But regardless I still don't see the issue, everyone just mad that others are stealing clout? Make your shit and if it's good awesome, if you can't tell if it's ai generated then in my opinion it is still a good piece of art. Art is just information, like everything else in the universe, artists simply arrange that information to tell the story they want. AI arranges that information according to an input. Computer generated art can be just as or more beautiful than something a person can generate. But I see a parallel in the watch world. Quartz watches came out and were far superior to automatic watches, but they just didn't have the same soul. I feel like the art world will put value into that soul more similar to the way automatic watches are way more valuable than quartz. This is where NFTs can help, verify and authenticate works from actual artists to prove they have a soul.
Good for them, I've checked artstation little lately, but saw this today, meanwhile on deviantart it feels harder to find Art made by an person instead of AI (from the frontpage)
I don't really know for Deviantart, but Artstation is also widely used as a platform to post portfolios, so it gotta keep that professional and authentic status.
Yeah that's half of what really ticks me off.
Like my studio uses ai for some concepts, and then actual talented artists paint over it. I don't love it but hey its not too rough.
But folk jacking off over it, calling themselves prompt engineers? Stealing other folks work? Being twats to artists saying they don't love how it's stealing their work? Just like nfts it's potentially neat tech suffocated by insufferable little entrepreneurs fixated on greed producing soulless garbage.
People keep submitting AI art and calling themselves artists, at best its a tool to help visualize something but to submit it and act like they did something great is asinine
It also just heavily impacts the artist's job market. Why would you hire or contract a graphic designer, character artist, etc. if you can enter a prompt into AI and just filter until you find the image that works for you.
Why would they hire a graphic designer when there are millions of websites and logos to rip off? Why would they hire Michaelangelo when they can get their ceiling painted by shooting random paintball colors at it?
Every industry has "my cousin/kid/dog could do that" options at the lower end. You hire a professional when you want a specific result, or you want someone with industry experience to make decisions to make the end product look good. It's the people who don't give a shit who hire two ducks, a roller skate, and an AI image masher.
What are you on about? At what point did I even hint at holding creative visions hostage? I have an issue with people claiming AI art as their own, as well as issues with artists art being poached and used without compensation or even credit.
If you don't see how that negatively impacts artists, and societal view of art as a whole, idk what to tell you. Guess you've never worked on a project for 10 hrs only to get robbed.
> worked on a project for 10 hrs only to get robbed.
as a person that has worked 60+ hours on freelance programming jobs that just fell through hundreds of times, fucking welcome to the club.
what i'm saying is that yeah, the small percentage of freelance artists that exist will suffer, but realistically this gives so much power to so many more people that really wanted it that you would be selfish to covet the ability to create art.
and the people working on long ass prompts to make shit that is unique are creating art, stop being salty.
your a programmer, how do you feel that chatgpt is basically going to take your career in less then a few years, when you put so much time and effort, your life into something, just to be spit out because someone took an algorithm and stole your hard work, and now dosent need you, you get no compensation for your time that it took for you to learn your craft , and your left without a wage
i mean i already stated, i'm quitting my programming job, apart from it being fucking soulless and draining me completely, i believe chat gpt will take the field over in a matter of a few years, i mean it sucks but i can only hope that it will help open source projects flourish over big tech companies.
whom are the people i will blame because in reality that is the big enemy there, big corporations pushed real artists out years ago, they have a tiny design team and a lone programmer put up the same font and then have it work through the same preset of stylings.
i am not mad at the tool that gives the masses access to something that can form most of what they use in their life, i'm mad at capitalism for fucking everyone over for years and us reaching the point where we should be working less and using these tools to express ourselves but instead no we have to worry if we will even be able to eat.
Unless they submit it and say they created it entirely and don't credit AI. Meta-data can be altered via screenshots/fresh photos, and without a blatant watermark it'd be hard for some to call them out. Sure you could commission them to try and catch the bluff, but they'd just need to run a prompt through enough until they find an image that matches the style they claimed to be theirs.
AI generated art is a cancer on the art scene right now, just like NFTs were last year. I'm fine with using AI for exploring new concepts or seeing fresh approaches to a topic when you're in a creative block to inform the direction of a project, but to submit AI generated art as your own is basically plagiarism.
Agreed. I see AI as utility for testing out or pitching concepts.
Or coming up of 100 itirations of something that’s only used as a minor asset in a big project. (ie. 100 poster designs for a times square NY CGI project).
Plus, I don’t think AI is there yet in terms of being extra specific about a product that client needs, let alone animation projects.
Not to mention being able to revise a tiny part of something without affecting the whole AI generated artwork / animation.
That's what cryptobros said about NFTs, and look where it got them.
When something is proper shit with little or no upside, people will absolutely come together to oppose it and make sure it dies.
yep, let us just give a warm welcome to an ascended form of mass consumerism that will plague humanity for as long as it exists because people just can't contain themselves
basically both deviant art and art station just implemented ai art without no consequences, and you cant do anything
artists are protesting my posting this over and over
Real artists are upset about AI generated art. Especially now that it’s coming out that a lot of the ai art is actually stealing work from real artists.
People have been posting lots of AI artworks on there lately. Most posts on there are true artworks created by skilled people who spend hours and hours on an artwork. Nowadays it gets flooded with AI artworks which are just a few clicks and keystrokes on a website. AI artwork is actually just a mash up of random artpieces blended with data provided by the user
If you don't know about AI-generated art you could confuse that with digital art.
Digitally created art, rendered images are fine because you made it.
Unless your Blender fork can use a sentence like "3d model of BMW i3 with widebody kit driving down the autobahn at sunset". Then it gets muddy.
This all started because a piece of ai art ended up on the home page, I’m not sure about the ins and outs of their algorithm but it’s incredibly difficult to get exposure on Artstation. Having a piece of computer generated art take a spot on the home page is a massive slap in the face to every other artist who actually make their art them selves.
No where near an expert on all this but I'm sure I read one commenter that the AI's are trolling through human works to build their art upon and they were quite pissed off about this as it borders on copyright infringement.
Here is their [official response](https://help.artstation.com/hc/en-us/articles/11451085663501-AI-Artwork-on-ArtStation) and course of action on the matter.
Eventually, A.I. will replace everything. Most people here assume that it takes the artscene by storm, but it’s in rapid speed spreading out to tons of other fields as well. We will be living in a world where just a few people in the world will be the ‘owner’ of those A.I. algorithms and the rest of the world will literally have no job as everything gets more and more automated.
However, in the example of a music performance, I would never ever go and listen to a robot playing, even if they could somehow mimic human emotion or understanding through playing. It’s the only way I still see A.I. likely not -or never- piercing through to replace actual humans doing something.
But, yes, someday all will be automated to our convenience and replace every single job in the world. It’ll likely change how we operate, and money might no longer be able to run ‘economy’ as no one can no longer really earn anything. I guess we’ll see.
I agree on most of this. I see money becoming redundant when automation reaches a certain threshold.
Where I differ in view is that there will not be a few overlord "owners" .Maybe for a brief time.
It will be at each of our fingertips for free through open source.
You cant have a jobless and moneyless world and have owners at the same time. It creates a paradox as the owners of the automation would have to hand out money so their product can be bought.
The distribution of earth's physical resources will be a severe issue though.
i think its ok for me as long as it was tag as ai generated. nobody can stop ai user but then thec wound is still fresh so a lot of protest but after 2 to 3 years then it is time to see what is really the impact.
where do you draw the line? What if someone is making art using ai as a tool? Like if someone uses 5 different ai images, meshes them together, improves upon them to the point where it's 50% manual work.
Everything is a remix.
I’m a musician. I’m going to be hard pressed to use a chord structure or instrument that has never been used by someone before.
I learned by playing classical piano. I still use some of the fingering and phrases in the music I write. It’s inescapable.
I create 3d art. I’m a photographer. I leaned both of these skills by reproducing the work of others.
I’m also a novelist, and my work is available under CC licenses.
All that to say, I don’t hate a computer for doing what it took me years to perfect. It’s the march of technology, and it’s been happening for years in the industrial sector - computers have been replacing humans and will continue to.
I get that people want to make a living making art, and that they feel robbed when a computer can learn their style in minutes, but that’s the cost of progress. Jobs go obsolete. Nothing is safe.
> All that to say, I don’t hate a computer for doing what it took me years to perfect.
Exactly. Computers (as with any other tool ever invented) just do the grunt work, which frees you up to improve on that.
If everyone and their dog can create simple AI images, then so what? Actual artists who might have taken 20 hours to manually produce something equivalent in the past can now take that as the starting point and put another 20 hours on top of that to produce something even more amazing that the algorithms couldn't have come up with by themselves.
It's just a tool. It's not preventing anyone from making art. And it's not like every single existing artist learned their craft entirely in a vacuum where they never saw the work of any other artists or were influenced by them.
but does it matter that a computer does what you mastered over the years? In the world of art trade A.I. will never be recognised on it's own. If peope use them as shortcuts to learning they will fall flat eventually, same as with all shortcuts.
but let's talk 3d modelling. For example I honestly don't believe a company would cheap out fucking around with ai to cut budget when one of their new products is introduced and they need models for marketing. The money they pay to a high end artist is an incredibly small portion of a marketing campaign. When it comes to custom jobs people may try to fuck around with ai before realising they lack the knowladge to make it work.
ultimately the only money arists may lose are small time jobs which they can make up for with the smart use of ai as a tool to cut work hours.
Art will not go anywhere, good arists aren't treathened, it's a tool. Use it or don't.
What is a shortcut? I didn’t come up with the western 12-tone scale, but I employ it when I compose. Every chord that I will ever play has been played in every variation before. I took shortcuts in learning by having a teacher who taught music theory.
I make 3d art, and use shape primitives that were programmed into a computer, whereas those who came before me had to enter each vertex via typed-out code. Those shortcuts save me countless hours.
But I don’t think it’s necessarily the shortcuts that people are upset about here - like you said, it’s the threat of being replaced. Where I disagree with you, though, is that I do think companies would replace a human artist with AI in an instant if it made financial sense. And I think it already does, and will only continue to disrupt industries.
My company tries to save money everywhere it can. We had to drop our budget for stock photos when our revenue took a hit recently. I installed a local copy of Stable and have loved the results. I get what I want much more quickly, and with no extra cost.
But I do agree with you on your last two points: it does free up time, and good artists shouldn’t feel threatened.
The people fighting to keep AI were never the artists to begin with. They think they are artists because they give a prompt to a bot that plagiarizes it in 5 seconds. True artists are not for AI and do not consider it to be art. Art is human creation.
There has been a trend where some people use some programs to create AI Art and then post it online as it they have drawn it all by themselves. It kills the purpose of the art process, basically.
Dreamstudio.ai , you get a few points for free to mess around with stable diffusion, you can also download the Web ui for it and run it from your computer for free.
Ignoring the other dude's angry ramblings, Midjourney website/discord server, Novel AI with their anime generators.
You can also run AI on your own system through web-guis and custom models. HuggingFace is a great website if you get interested in running image generation algorithms on your PC, but the process is very resource heavy - you need a good (6+ VRAM) videocard for use.
I also remember there being s good community GUI that allowed for 2gb and 4gb videocards, and it was somewhere on huggingface, but i don't remember.
And yeah - tag your ai art accordingly if you are to post it anywhere.
Angry man is right tho, I totally agree that people shouldn't be using it as a way to monetize or flaunt when they aren't actually making it themselves.
It's just fun to play with.. and ive recently invested in a RTX 4090 for my PC for rendering (since I'm single and ready to avoid the world) so I'm sure it'll be interesting to explore
artists hold hostage that which others have no way to express, as far as jobs go, artist has always been one that allows privileged people to dominate and those who had to work or die had very little or no access at all.
how do you practice art when you are too tired just surviving to actually practice something like this, this freeing of creative expression is good for the average person.
Oh don’t give me this Faux Socialist “artists are the real bourgeoisie” crap
Art is a skill. AI art literally cannot exist without first stealing other people’s hard work. Artists aren’t holding anything hostage. It’s capitalism and the owner class that are responsible for the vast majority of people being unable to pursue their passions.
These types of comments just prove to me that the proponents of AI art are purely motivated by envy and a desire to punish real artists for daring to have trained and honed a skill.
Please do some introspection and change for the better.
>These types of comments just prove to me that the proponents of AI art are purely motivated by envy and a desire to punish real artists for daring to have trained and honed a skill.
this is cringe and you know it, people with top level skills will survive, their unique perspective sought out, you are a low skill individual and you know that you could get wiped out by this basic ai, don't project your insecurity of skill onto a useful tool for the masses
Unpopular opinion and I will get downvoted to oblivion because of it but AI generated art CAN be artistic. It's just that the tools are keywords, and most of the work is not of your making, but to make great AI generated art you need to master that tool, have an idea to start with.
Its way of generating that art, taking from stock and not stock images is however of dubious ethics, and is pretty harsh on artists.
It can also be used as a tool for inspiration to artists.
think about collage, a technique of illustration and artistic creation that uses works to cut them out and create new works. You can't use any cobra in a collage, and if for example you cut out the monalisa's head, it's clear what your influence is.The creation with AI is the same, the words that you give are the scissors that cut and paste the works, BUT the difference is that in the collage IT WAS EVIDENT that you were based on a previous work, you do not steal anything, you reinterpret, in AI that work prior is blurred and treated as "original work", there is no respect for the original work.
right, kinda makes me think of when people say "I wish protesters would just stay on the sidewalk with their signs and not make themselves visible by obstructing traffic" Disruption is necessary for change. If people can ignore something, they will.
You know, i used the joke "Trending on artstation" whenever i see some AI prompter try to say their generated work is original and they spent a long time on it.
But after seeing the replies and realising its that bad in ArtStation, i wonder, will the "Trending on artstation" tag be useless once AS gets completely riddled with AI art that the AI just gives up and generates a bunch of random colors without any pattern.
Basically theirs people wanting to get rid Get rid of AI generated Art in ArtStation.
Here's an article outside of the mass media:
https://lancemendoza1.medium.com/a-perspective-on-no-to-ai-generated-images-70931cd32129
I feel like people have been warned that this was eventually going to happen, and most just turned a blind eye, or blatantly rejected it as a possibility.
Now that it is currently happening, people are up in arms lol. Humans are predictable.
Then you have no idea how the “art” is generated. Or you do know and you don’t want to admit it’s about having your ego hurt that a machine will out skill you soon
Having been an ML programmer for 20 years, and an artist my whole life (and a professional for the last 20 years) I *do* know how the AI image is generated. It samples existing art work based on algorithmic interpretation of descriptive keywords assigned to the art and directed by the user’s prompts.
The art used is acquired without permission from or compensation to the artist.
That is theft. Bottom line.
And finally a machine cannot ‘out skill’ a human artist… it can only steal from the artist and then remix that artists work with art stolen from other artists.
It samples where the pixels in images associated with keywords should be. It’s referencing a massive amount of artwork and individual artist to determine where these pixels should be. If you’re a professional artist than you should know how common and important finding good references are to create your own unique art. I’m sure you have a bunch of favorite artists you’ve studied and almost mimicked through your life. That’s exactly what the generator is doing and it is taking references from 100x the amount of artist you probably do when working on something. Arguing about the ethical problems of AI is fine but calling it flat out stealing is a pretty bad argument and a bit disingenuous from a “professional programmer and career artist”
I'm a programmer and artist myself, and I've been flipping back and forth on the topic. I've pretty much ended on "AI art is derivative work and should be treated as such" in the same way a mashup or a collage is derivative. However I do think that anyone selling access to a model should have to pay a fee of some sort to compensate the artists they are using works from, with the exception of stuff that would be considered creative Commons.
What do you think? It's a hard thing for me to come to a conclusion on, but I think if this can turn out in a way that's beneficial to artists instead of trying to replace their labor it can work out. The tech itself is neutral, but the way it's starting to be used needs to be regulated. Maybe I'm just being an NFT goon about it though.
i just wanted to say as a programmer myself that the person claiming to be a programmer below is either lying or straight up trying to manipulate the conversation.
the explanation for ai has always been that the ai dreams an image, it has inspiration but it mostly generates it out of prompts and can take reference from shit it has looked at, this is pretty identical to how humans operate, it's learned to do art and can make new art that just didn't exist, it's not just copy and pasting someone's old work, it's a whole new existence.
sorry artists, it's the future and you have been replaced.
Truth. Just references. To make 1 image it pulls pixel location from thousands of pieces and artists. Way more than a human does when they reference other art. I get why ai “art” feels bad but calling it stealing isn’t the truth
There's still a place for outdated skilled professions like cobblers, coopers, and blacksmiths, but it's not like it was back in their prime. It is sad, but that's just how it goes when the world changes.
Luddites that don't uderstand the root of the problem and just blame it on AI because is easy to do.
NFT/Crypo is the issue, not AI.
The current economic system where artists aren't appreciated is the issue, not AI.
The commodification of Art, where it's value is deeply related to money laundering is the issue, not AI.
The decadent entertainment industry is the issue, not AI.
So on and so on.
Sincerely, an artist.
I only hire real artists that grow their own cotton and weave their own canvas. They must grow the plants and make the ink for the paint too.
Otherwise they're just modern day rip offs building off the work out others. Can they really make anything original if they buy ink from a store?
And don't get me started on any alleged "artist" that uses Photoshop with all those plugins and filters and fancy tools that someone else wrote and they're just clicking a button.
From what I've heard there is a lot of ai art on artstation lately and they're not doing anything about it so artist are posting this picture as a form of protest.
Trying to keep the human element in art, right now no one has an fraudulently sourced ai database directly installed into a sculpting software, so yeah,
The AI generation is pretty amazing, but years of learnt editing and technique ia blown apart by a couple of days of AI generarion. So maybe this is why.
Not really, not at this point. Even with dreambooth AI is still far from overtaking the market just yet. Maybe in ~2 years though it might become stable enough for general use.
I can only talk from a non artist point of view, I think what you say here about in 2 or so years from so is also fair. However what do you think the reason for creative sites such as art station wanting to be rid of this on their platforms?
Well artists are VERY salty about AI right now - it's basically traditional vs digital, but amplified thorough drama enhancing algorithms of social media.
And, of course, art gallery websites are quick to ban AI art to get that sweet community cred.
Partly the hate is 50/50 justified, as concept and commission artists are already loosing jobs, but then again - nobody says a thing when less romanticised jobs get automated and employees booted.
Basically what it boils down to is massive misinformation campaign on twitter, with everyone saying AI is evil photoshop, and fear of new technology. It'll pass in a year or two.
I can totally agree with this. Tech unfortunately somewhat always kills tradition. Elements of some tradtions are respected more because of the ground work put in to yield said results. I can very much see why the AI generation is hated on, I do wonder (considering how far tech has come in only the last 30 years or so) how far AI will go in terms of design. Its getting pretty damn creative for a bot system.
Edit: seeing how fast things can be generated to a decent standard without a comparably huge amount of effort compared to working totally from the ground up is what I should have emphasized more in my first comment. I've been designing and also 3d modelling for around 2 years now (by no means anything impressive). A lot of AI generation makes me look at a lot of my work and wonder how much quicker an AI could have produced the same to the same around abouts quality.
People are protesting Artstation having AI generated images. Because the site is for art made by artists. Not Random AI generated images.
Not only that, it is meant for professional portfolios and networking, people care about the skill of the person, AI just makes this harder, regardless of anyone's opinion on AI itself.
Even outside of an moralistic issues, it makes no sense to post AI generated art on Artstation because of the portfolio thing. When an artist posts art on there, they are saying "this is what I can do". When people post AI generations on there, all it does is advertise that generator. Like, no one is going to hire you because you're a "prompt engineer". Anyone can do that. If they were going to do it they would just use in-house people and go use the same AI thing you did. It's the equivalent of someone buying a commission and then posting that art on artstation. You didnt make that. Someone else did. The fact that it was your idea means nothing.
"Actually I worked really hard on that prompt. I spent literally tens of minutes refining it and refining it until it scraped the right artists in the right manner"
Don't let the AI "artists" hear, they'll bring up photography as "defence"
That’s honestly the dumbest take I’ve ever heard. People still have to put actual work into photography. And even it would get screwed by AI because they can totally generate photos now.
There is no difference in being an "AI 'Artist'" and being a "Commission Artist". If I were to tell you I was a commission artist, and I make 'my' art by paying somebody else to produce it for me, editing it in photoshop, and claiming it was mine, I'd rightfully be accused of stealing. I wish these mindless troglodytes could get this through their skulls.
Yep I’ve made this analogy before. If anyone could just ask others to make art for them, then claim that they’re the “artists”, then all my clients are artists.
The funny thing about prompts and "prompt engineers" as they call themselves is that they can be made literally obsolete within days. Just like how art was stolen to train an ai model, prompts can be taken to train a language model where literally anyone can type in what they want and it will come up with a perfect output
What if I use deep dream to alter a picture I've created with another set of pictures I've created? I see the issue with AI generated art, but I feel like AI can still have it's place in digital art since you can feed it your own images instead of prompting it to use other's art.
this is what people are trying to argue for, the concept of AI generated images in itself isn't bad. It's just all of these people insistent on replacing artists with it, doubled with the current lack for proper copyright laws for AI.
I'm no artist myself but use cases like described I'd argue are valid. You're using a creative tool to manipulate your own art in a unique way, no different than using some digital apps built in filters to automatically modify bits for you based on your own parameters.
art Curation
I'm pretty sure some companies will eventually start hiring prompt engineers to cut on labour costs and some people are better than others at it. However, that does not mean Artstation is the place for it. If photography is not allowed in Artstation neither should AI art. They can make their own page for prompt portfolios.
I like the analagy of it being the equivalent of tweaking features in a character creation menu of a game then adding that as your own art.
Yeah, I can basically make game ready models of all of the playable characters in Skyrim 😎
Me and my friend like to test stuff with characters by ripping stuff from FFXIV. Its a lot of fun but also isn't like we are posting them to our portfolios.
Funniest thing I’ve seen recently was a post of someone asking how to fix the terribly generated hand on their overall beautiful wizard drawing. It would be so simple just to redraw it, but of course you can’t lol.
This 100%, I was taught my first semester in college of how important it is to share my work through art station, having AI images makes it hard to search for actual work
This whole debate brings me back 20 years ago with procedural art, more specifically fractals. AI art is just a subset of procedural art at the end of it. I have been using stable diffusion to create textures and it is pretty much the same workload as apophysis. Pick a model,find a interesting seed, check that seed on different diffusion algorithms, and fine tune it afterwards. I can definitely understand the frustration with low quality AI work , but there is potential for amazing works of art to be created out there, we just need to let it mature for a bit.
[удалено]
I see now, I didn't think about this aspect of it. I am not sure about mind journey as I don't use it. But even stable diffusion has a term about not using the AI to produce ilegal content, so I would believe that mind journey would have something similar , and producing work that breaks copyright would fall into that. I think we will end up in the situation that we already are, with cloud computing services not allowing for the reproduction of copyrightable material, but we will have open source stuff that will definitely be able to do it and the only legal course would be to go after people that actually publish such things.
[удалено]
It is a lot easier to "steal someone style" with Stable Diffusion now, it is possible to train "mini models" and use them in conjunction with other models, so for example you can train a model with your pictures and then get amazing results with prompts that like "me as iron man fighting thor" . I am a pessimist, so I believe any safeguard regarding this sort of thing will be ultimately useless in terms of preventing images from being used in a training set, we are already too far into development to prevent that. For example this model does that for the "disney style" [https://civitai.com/models/24/modern-disney](https://civitai.com/models/24/modern-disney) , also beware when browsing this website as there is a lot of NSFW), the link is SFW btw.
It’s less about that and more about the fact that AI imagery steals art from humans to generate its images without compensation or credit.
Exactly. It's low-quality at the moment because it's still new and shiny and the latest hotness, and everyone is dipping their toe in that water. Give it a couple of years and AI output will be just one more tool in the digital artist's toolbox.
AI art isn’t art.
[удалено]
Yeah but that's different, no one is saying you can't use prompts or even other people's work in your art (asset packs exist for a good reason), the problem is stopping there. In your case you used it as a starting point, but added your own work and interpretation, you made something, we can actually look at how good you are at exactly what you added, that makes it portfolio worthy. But some people are just posting the AI piece and nothing else, no editing, not making anything based off the art, how is that different from graving something royalty free from Google images? Write a prompt, get a picture and post it. What skill can be evaluated from that, we can't even be sure if they're great with the AI, or just got lucky and got something that looked cool.
But the art there isn't the concept art but the stuff you put time and effort into, making an actual game. Saying "here's some concept art I used to give myself a starting point" is wildly different to "here's the results of some prompts"
Well put!
[удалено]
Yeah, it's this - the artstation people are pissed at the content turning up that was trained off their art without their permission. It's a real slap in the face. Also comparing machine learning to an artist imitating and adapting is one thing but machines don't sleep and at this rate 99% of content on the internet is just going to be generated by a server farm somewhere.
hmmmm.... you're onto something
When I go to art station I love being blown away by how unbelievably good people are. I don’t want to see what a computer can do.
Not to forget that a lot of those AI "Art" Generators get trained with Art from real Artists, without them ever getting noticed, credited or compensated.
From a legal or perhaps philosophical perspective, is that different from someone deliberately training themselves to emulate the style of a particular existing artist? Are styles copyrightable?
[удалено]
you forgot to mention that theyr SELLING that "art" they stole
> Because the site is for art made by artists. Which then becomes a case of OK, where do you draw the line? Is photography not art because, in the simplest of cases, it's point and click? How do you determine what level of human labor in a piece is and is not acceptable, and how do you tell if a piece reaches that standard, if you only have the piece itself to consider? If someone uses an AI tool to generate an image, then does their best to manually replicate that image in watercolor, oils, or some other medium, is it art? Just saying that if people can't give a definition other than "I know it when I see it", there's always going to be argument about what should and shouldn't be considered art... or at least what should or shouldn't be uploaded to Artstation, I guess.
I understand the larger conversation of what qualifies as art is complicated. However in this instance it is not. The issue is someone typing a sentence, getting a random image and posting the result on a website meant for artists to show their ability in specific disciplines and software's. Doing the equivalent of a google search is not par for the course of working artists.
But lots of people aren't just getting a random image, plenty of people are doing various post processing and other techniques for the really 'wow' aspect? If you just say a prompt and post the picture as-is. That's understandably a bit less controversal . But there are tons of AI assisted tools (inpainting/outcropping), replacing small segments piece by piece, training subsets, doing traditional photoshop and other touch up things too. At what point does it count as human and not some artist kitbashing things together?
If you commission an artist and tell them you want "An astronaut riding a horse", and they then paint an image satisfying that description, does that make you the artist?
Photography isn't allowed in Artstation so I guess you answered yourself.
Not following it but, Deviant art recently opted in everyone to use their works for AI with a tedious opt-out.
Nope! They had enough backlash that the changed it to default opt out, manual opt in.
Problem is, even with the opt out, they'll still use your art, and themselves state that they can't guarantee your artworks won't be used for AI art generation.
It seemed disingenuous to me. During the time they assumed opt in by default, they trained their algorithm on all the art they could. Changing their tune later doesn't un-train the algorithm, so no real change took place. It seemed like a way to save face rather than genuine concern over the issue their users were concerned about
Deviantart was becoming a cesspool for AI art everywhere I went little to no variation
That's always going to happen when a new tool or technique debuts. Everyone jumps in and uses it for everything because it's the new hotness, then its popularity fades and it eventually becomes just one more item in everyone's toolbox.
I still see it every damn time I check the front page even though I've been added all the ai tags I can find onto my blocked list. Ugh.
They gave up on that idea a few hours after the announcement. It's opt-in now. They also added a button that switches on/off for all deviations at once two hours in due to the backlash. But yeah, it was a dumb idea in the first place.
Nice
China just made watermarks mandatory on all AI generated content. [relevant ARS Technica article](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/china-bans-ai-generated-media-without-watermarks/)
This is not what is happening to OP's question dude. What OP is asking about is a form of protest by users on Artstation to push back against AI art generation.
Would help if the AI models came prepackaged with watermark implementation.
You can sometimes use AI to detect if an image was generated with AI. Not sure if anyone figured out how to do that yet with the diffusion models, but it was pretty easy back when it was all about GANs.
Ah yes, let's make an AI that tags human art as AI. AI's are literally trained by proving AI recognition AI's wrong.
Watch Coded Bias, it explains how flawed algorithms truly are and companies are pushing them into market use without any real testing.
All I gotta do is zoom in on the image and they all have that.... idek how to describe it. It just looks ai generated up close.
Machine goo
Yup, that's it. 🤣
Dang, that's actually a perfect descriptor.
So much detail that is actually just nothing
Dalle2 tried this
Dall-E does.. But it's just a few pixels tall, so it's easily cropped
Good luck with that 😂😂😂
Amazing that for once the Chinese government does something right
Seems completely reactionary to me.. Human artwork already has signatures.
Is there such a thing as right? It’s all about money either way. Money, power and maintaining control.
Yeah they’ve sure got their priorities in order
This isn’t what’s going on at art station
Yes because no-one would ever forget to add a ridiculous slap-on addition when something was generated by one tool instead of another one.
I find this whole situation so funny. All these artists pissed that a computer can generate stuff that resembles theirs. I will continue using ai art indefinitely, and shouldn't have any watermarks. It's not a copyright violation as you cannot copyright a 'style'. Copyright law protects finished works of art. It does not protect things like facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct. The part I find the most funny is these artists crying that their work is stolen, yet I can ALMOST guarantee 90% of them have pirated a movie, music, or game in the past. And that is actually illegal, this is a perfectly legal tool that should be used as a tool.
As far as I can tell the problem this protest is about is that people are geberating images in seconds and uploading them to websites where people are trying to show the work they put many hours into. Tool? yes. Generate and pass of as self made art? No!
Ah I see. I didn't think anyone would honestly be trying to pass it off as their own. But regardless I still don't see the issue, everyone just mad that others are stealing clout? Make your shit and if it's good awesome, if you can't tell if it's ai generated then in my opinion it is still a good piece of art. Art is just information, like everything else in the universe, artists simply arrange that information to tell the story they want. AI arranges that information according to an input. Computer generated art can be just as or more beautiful than something a person can generate. But I see a parallel in the watch world. Quartz watches came out and were far superior to automatic watches, but they just didn't have the same soul. I feel like the art world will put value into that soul more similar to the way automatic watches are way more valuable than quartz. This is where NFTs can help, verify and authenticate works from actual artists to prove they have a soul.
Will they keep Winnie the Pooh colors on those watermarks, though?
This is not the right answer.
Good for them, I've checked artstation little lately, but saw this today, meanwhile on deviantart it feels harder to find Art made by an person instead of AI (from the frontpage)
I don't really know for Deviantart, but Artstation is also widely used as a platform to post portfolios, so it gotta keep that professional and authentic status.
[удалено]
Yeah that's half of what really ticks me off. Like my studio uses ai for some concepts, and then actual talented artists paint over it. I don't love it but hey its not too rough. But folk jacking off over it, calling themselves prompt engineers? Stealing other folks work? Being twats to artists saying they don't love how it's stealing their work? Just like nfts it's potentially neat tech suffocated by insufferable little entrepreneurs fixated on greed producing soulless garbage.
[удалено]
Let's use ai to make Disney art!!!
“Disney Style, hot milf, big boobs, 3D” ohhhh baby now we’re talking
People keep submitting AI art and calling themselves artists, at best its a tool to help visualize something but to submit it and act like they did something great is asinine
It also just heavily impacts the artist's job market. Why would you hire or contract a graphic designer, character artist, etc. if you can enter a prompt into AI and just filter until you find the image that works for you.
Why would they hire a graphic designer when there are millions of websites and logos to rip off? Why would they hire Michaelangelo when they can get their ceiling painted by shooting random paintball colors at it? Every industry has "my cousin/kid/dog could do that" options at the lower end. You hire a professional when you want a specific result, or you want someone with industry experience to make decisions to make the end product look good. It's the people who don't give a shit who hire two ducks, a roller skate, and an AI image masher.
yeah, fuck people being able to express their own creative vision, lets hold that shit hostage... sorry but ai art is genuinely good for most people.
As a tool to help visualize something sure, but to submit it definitely not, that's like saying someone with aim bot in a fps is a God gamer
What are you on about? At what point did I even hint at holding creative visions hostage? I have an issue with people claiming AI art as their own, as well as issues with artists art being poached and used without compensation or even credit. If you don't see how that negatively impacts artists, and societal view of art as a whole, idk what to tell you. Guess you've never worked on a project for 10 hrs only to get robbed.
> worked on a project for 10 hrs only to get robbed. as a person that has worked 60+ hours on freelance programming jobs that just fell through hundreds of times, fucking welcome to the club. what i'm saying is that yeah, the small percentage of freelance artists that exist will suffer, but realistically this gives so much power to so many more people that really wanted it that you would be selfish to covet the ability to create art. and the people working on long ass prompts to make shit that is unique are creating art, stop being salty.
your a programmer, how do you feel that chatgpt is basically going to take your career in less then a few years, when you put so much time and effort, your life into something, just to be spit out because someone took an algorithm and stole your hard work, and now dosent need you, you get no compensation for your time that it took for you to learn your craft , and your left without a wage
i mean i already stated, i'm quitting my programming job, apart from it being fucking soulless and draining me completely, i believe chat gpt will take the field over in a matter of a few years, i mean it sucks but i can only hope that it will help open source projects flourish over big tech companies. whom are the people i will blame because in reality that is the big enemy there, big corporations pushed real artists out years ago, they have a tiny design team and a lone programmer put up the same font and then have it work through the same preset of stylings. i am not mad at the tool that gives the masses access to something that can form most of what they use in their life, i'm mad at capitalism for fucking everyone over for years and us reaching the point where we should be working less and using these tools to express ourselves but instead no we have to worry if we will even be able to eat.
Unless they submit it and say they created it entirely and don't credit AI. Meta-data can be altered via screenshots/fresh photos, and without a blatant watermark it'd be hard for some to call them out. Sure you could commission them to try and catch the bluff, but they'd just need to run a prompt through enough until they find an image that matches the style they claimed to be theirs.
seems like a war is starting
They just hate Alan Ignacio
AI generated art is a cancer on the art scene right now, just like NFTs were last year. I'm fine with using AI for exploring new concepts or seeing fresh approaches to a topic when you're in a creative block to inform the direction of a project, but to submit AI generated art as your own is basically plagiarism.
Agreed. I see AI as utility for testing out or pitching concepts. Or coming up of 100 itirations of something that’s only used as a minor asset in a big project. (ie. 100 poster designs for a times square NY CGI project). Plus, I don’t think AI is there yet in terms of being extra specific about a product that client needs, let alone animation projects. Not to mention being able to revise a tiny part of something without affecting the whole AI generated artwork / animation.
100 percent.
One thing that I actually really like about image generating AI is generating the exact textures that you want and image upscaling
all of this is sounding identical to the backlash digital art got
cancer or not, this is the future, there is no going back
That's what cryptobros said about NFTs, and look where it got them. When something is proper shit with little or no upside, people will absolutely come together to oppose it and make sure it dies.
yep, let us just give a warm welcome to an ascended form of mass consumerism that will plague humanity for as long as it exists because people just can't contain themselves
false
laughable
They are obviously trying to ban Illustrator, everyone is sick of flat people illustrations.
1 more second of listening to people asking me for help with some issues that happened in illustrator and my head will explode. Let's cancel it! haha
I don’t think a lot of people realize how much of an issue AI generated images has become. I’m glad other companies/softwares are taking is seriously.
Whats the real issue(s)?
basically both deviant art and art station just implemented ai art without no consequences, and you cant do anything artists are protesting my posting this over and over
Real artists are upset about AI generated art. Especially now that it’s coming out that a lot of the ai art is actually stealing work from real artists.
Some of the AI work looks so good, as if it's handmade. It makes real artists looks bad in comparison
People have been posting lots of AI artworks on there lately. Most posts on there are true artworks created by skilled people who spend hours and hours on an artwork. Nowadays it gets flooded with AI artworks which are just a few clicks and keystrokes on a website. AI artwork is actually just a mash up of random artpieces blended with data provided by the user
I support this 100%
take a guess
If you don't know about AI-generated art you could confuse that with digital art. Digitally created art, rendered images are fine because you made it. Unless your Blender fork can use a sentence like "3d model of BMW i3 with widebody kit driving down the autobahn at sunset". Then it gets muddy.
This all started because a piece of ai art ended up on the home page, I’m not sure about the ins and outs of their algorithm but it’s incredibly difficult to get exposure on Artstation. Having a piece of computer generated art take a spot on the home page is a massive slap in the face to every other artist who actually make their art them selves.
thats right ! ai should not be allowed here too
Beep boop yes you are totally right my human friend who is also human, like me
about time
No where near an expert on all this but I'm sure I read one commenter that the AI's are trolling through human works to build their art upon and they were quite pissed off about this as it borders on copyright infringement.
Here is their [official response](https://help.artstation.com/hc/en-us/articles/11451085663501-AI-Artwork-on-ArtStation) and course of action on the matter.
Fuck ai
Eventually, A.I. will replace everything. Most people here assume that it takes the artscene by storm, but it’s in rapid speed spreading out to tons of other fields as well. We will be living in a world where just a few people in the world will be the ‘owner’ of those A.I. algorithms and the rest of the world will literally have no job as everything gets more and more automated. However, in the example of a music performance, I would never ever go and listen to a robot playing, even if they could somehow mimic human emotion or understanding through playing. It’s the only way I still see A.I. likely not -or never- piercing through to replace actual humans doing something. But, yes, someday all will be automated to our convenience and replace every single job in the world. It’ll likely change how we operate, and money might no longer be able to run ‘economy’ as no one can no longer really earn anything. I guess we’ll see.
I agree on most of this. I see money becoming redundant when automation reaches a certain threshold. Where I differ in view is that there will not be a few overlord "owners" .Maybe for a brief time. It will be at each of our fingertips for free through open source. You cant have a jobless and moneyless world and have owners at the same time. It creates a paradox as the owners of the automation would have to hand out money so their product can be bought. The distribution of earth's physical resources will be a severe issue though.
i think its ok for me as long as it was tag as ai generated. nobody can stop ai user but then thec wound is still fresh so a lot of protest but after 2 to 3 years then it is time to see what is really the impact.
We hate AI art that’s what happening
where do you draw the line? What if someone is making art using ai as a tool? Like if someone uses 5 different ai images, meshes them together, improves upon them to the point where it's 50% manual work.
Everything is a remix. I’m a musician. I’m going to be hard pressed to use a chord structure or instrument that has never been used by someone before. I learned by playing classical piano. I still use some of the fingering and phrases in the music I write. It’s inescapable. I create 3d art. I’m a photographer. I leaned both of these skills by reproducing the work of others. I’m also a novelist, and my work is available under CC licenses. All that to say, I don’t hate a computer for doing what it took me years to perfect. It’s the march of technology, and it’s been happening for years in the industrial sector - computers have been replacing humans and will continue to. I get that people want to make a living making art, and that they feel robbed when a computer can learn their style in minutes, but that’s the cost of progress. Jobs go obsolete. Nothing is safe.
> All that to say, I don’t hate a computer for doing what it took me years to perfect. Exactly. Computers (as with any other tool ever invented) just do the grunt work, which frees you up to improve on that. If everyone and their dog can create simple AI images, then so what? Actual artists who might have taken 20 hours to manually produce something equivalent in the past can now take that as the starting point and put another 20 hours on top of that to produce something even more amazing that the algorithms couldn't have come up with by themselves. It's just a tool. It's not preventing anyone from making art. And it's not like every single existing artist learned their craft entirely in a vacuum where they never saw the work of any other artists or were influenced by them.
but does it matter that a computer does what you mastered over the years? In the world of art trade A.I. will never be recognised on it's own. If peope use them as shortcuts to learning they will fall flat eventually, same as with all shortcuts. but let's talk 3d modelling. For example I honestly don't believe a company would cheap out fucking around with ai to cut budget when one of their new products is introduced and they need models for marketing. The money they pay to a high end artist is an incredibly small portion of a marketing campaign. When it comes to custom jobs people may try to fuck around with ai before realising they lack the knowladge to make it work. ultimately the only money arists may lose are small time jobs which they can make up for with the smart use of ai as a tool to cut work hours. Art will not go anywhere, good arists aren't treathened, it's a tool. Use it or don't.
What is a shortcut? I didn’t come up with the western 12-tone scale, but I employ it when I compose. Every chord that I will ever play has been played in every variation before. I took shortcuts in learning by having a teacher who taught music theory. I make 3d art, and use shape primitives that were programmed into a computer, whereas those who came before me had to enter each vertex via typed-out code. Those shortcuts save me countless hours. But I don’t think it’s necessarily the shortcuts that people are upset about here - like you said, it’s the threat of being replaced. Where I disagree with you, though, is that I do think companies would replace a human artist with AI in an instant if it made financial sense. And I think it already does, and will only continue to disrupt industries. My company tries to save money everywhere it can. We had to drop our budget for stock photos when our revenue took a hit recently. I installed a local copy of Stable and have loved the results. I get what I want much more quickly, and with no extra cost. But I do agree with you on your last two points: it does free up time, and good artists shouldn’t feel threatened.
People are using artists’ work without their permission to feed into their AI/train their AI.
You need permission to look at art now?
No permission is needed to look at an art piece. You yourself can learn from art pieces just by looking at them. Is it a felony now?
Good
AI Sucks, just that..
The people fighting to keep AI were never the artists to begin with. They think they are artists because they give a prompt to a bot that plagiarizes it in 5 seconds. True artists are not for AI and do not consider it to be art. Art is human creation.
The obvious goal of both the people behind the AI and the leeches are to make talent obsolete
To me, AI Art is not even art
There has been a trend where some people use some programs to create AI Art and then post it online as it they have drawn it all by themselves. It kills the purpose of the art process, basically.
Fuck AI art, that's what.
Some sites are protesting AI generated art, you can still find it on Pixiv though.
Good
How does one produce AI art?
Dreamstudio.ai , you get a few points for free to mess around with stable diffusion, you can also download the Web ui for it and run it from your computer for free.
Ignoring the other dude's angry ramblings, Midjourney website/discord server, Novel AI with their anime generators. You can also run AI on your own system through web-guis and custom models. HuggingFace is a great website if you get interested in running image generation algorithms on your PC, but the process is very resource heavy - you need a good (6+ VRAM) videocard for use. I also remember there being s good community GUI that allowed for 2gb and 4gb videocards, and it was somewhere on huggingface, but i don't remember. And yeah - tag your ai art accordingly if you are to post it anywhere.
Angry man is right tho, I totally agree that people shouldn't be using it as a way to monetize or flaunt when they aren't actually making it themselves. It's just fun to play with.. and ive recently invested in a RTX 4090 for my PC for rendering (since I'm single and ready to avoid the world) so I'm sure it'll be interesting to explore
artists hold hostage that which others have no way to express, as far as jobs go, artist has always been one that allows privileged people to dominate and those who had to work or die had very little or no access at all. how do you practice art when you are too tired just surviving to actually practice something like this, this freeing of creative expression is good for the average person.
Oh don’t give me this Faux Socialist “artists are the real bourgeoisie” crap Art is a skill. AI art literally cannot exist without first stealing other people’s hard work. Artists aren’t holding anything hostage. It’s capitalism and the owner class that are responsible for the vast majority of people being unable to pursue their passions. These types of comments just prove to me that the proponents of AI art are purely motivated by envy and a desire to punish real artists for daring to have trained and honed a skill. Please do some introspection and change for the better.
>These types of comments just prove to me that the proponents of AI art are purely motivated by envy and a desire to punish real artists for daring to have trained and honed a skill. this is cringe and you know it, people with top level skills will survive, their unique perspective sought out, you are a low skill individual and you know that you could get wiped out by this basic ai, don't project your insecurity of skill onto a useful tool for the masses
Lmao what
Glad I'm built different choom. Thats an interesting viewpoint to sympathize with the artistically challenged
Can people tell if a piece is AI generated?
With the current level of algorithmic refinement, usually yes. Give it another decade, though...
AI isn’t art
Unpopular opinion and I will get downvoted to oblivion because of it but AI generated art CAN be artistic. It's just that the tools are keywords, and most of the work is not of your making, but to make great AI generated art you need to master that tool, have an idea to start with. Its way of generating that art, taking from stock and not stock images is however of dubious ethics, and is pretty harsh on artists. It can also be used as a tool for inspiration to artists.
think about collage, a technique of illustration and artistic creation that uses works to cut them out and create new works. You can't use any cobra in a collage, and if for example you cut out the monalisa's head, it's clear what your influence is.The creation with AI is the same, the words that you give are the scissors that cut and paste the works, BUT the difference is that in the collage IT WAS EVIDENT that you were based on a previous work, you do not steal anything, you reinterpret, in AI that work prior is blurred and treated as "original work", there is no respect for the original work.
It’s so annoying I’m just trying to find art inspiration
[удалено]
right, kinda makes me think of when people say "I wish protesters would just stay on the sidewalk with their signs and not make themselves visible by obstructing traffic" Disruption is necessary for change. If people can ignore something, they will.
You know, i used the joke "Trending on artstation" whenever i see some AI prompter try to say their generated work is original and they spent a long time on it. But after seeing the replies and realising its that bad in ArtStation, i wonder, will the "Trending on artstation" tag be useless once AS gets completely riddled with AI art that the AI just gives up and generates a bunch of random colors without any pattern.
Basically theirs people wanting to get rid Get rid of AI generated Art in ArtStation. Here's an article outside of the mass media: https://lancemendoza1.medium.com/a-perspective-on-no-to-ai-generated-images-70931cd32129
And I am, as a caligrapher, strongly against printint press as it will affect me. Ban it, pls.
The true artists are losing their jobs to fuking robots
Well if a machine does your job better and cheaper…
I feel like people have been warned that this was eventually going to happen, and most just turned a blind eye, or blatantly rejected it as a possibility. Now that it is currently happening, people are up in arms lol. Humans are predictable.
Adapt or be replaced. This is the way it always is when major change comes to an industry.
Nope. It’s not about adapting. It’s about AI not stealing our art without payment or credit. Theft is theft.
Then you have no idea how the “art” is generated. Or you do know and you don’t want to admit it’s about having your ego hurt that a machine will out skill you soon
Having been an ML programmer for 20 years, and an artist my whole life (and a professional for the last 20 years) I *do* know how the AI image is generated. It samples existing art work based on algorithmic interpretation of descriptive keywords assigned to the art and directed by the user’s prompts. The art used is acquired without permission from or compensation to the artist. That is theft. Bottom line. And finally a machine cannot ‘out skill’ a human artist… it can only steal from the artist and then remix that artists work with art stolen from other artists.
It samples where the pixels in images associated with keywords should be. It’s referencing a massive amount of artwork and individual artist to determine where these pixels should be. If you’re a professional artist than you should know how common and important finding good references are to create your own unique art. I’m sure you have a bunch of favorite artists you’ve studied and almost mimicked through your life. That’s exactly what the generator is doing and it is taking references from 100x the amount of artist you probably do when working on something. Arguing about the ethical problems of AI is fine but calling it flat out stealing is a pretty bad argument and a bit disingenuous from a “professional programmer and career artist”
I'm a programmer and artist myself, and I've been flipping back and forth on the topic. I've pretty much ended on "AI art is derivative work and should be treated as such" in the same way a mashup or a collage is derivative. However I do think that anyone selling access to a model should have to pay a fee of some sort to compensate the artists they are using works from, with the exception of stuff that would be considered creative Commons. What do you think? It's a hard thing for me to come to a conclusion on, but I think if this can turn out in a way that's beneficial to artists instead of trying to replace their labor it can work out. The tech itself is neutral, but the way it's starting to be used needs to be regulated. Maybe I'm just being an NFT goon about it though.
i just wanted to say as a programmer myself that the person claiming to be a programmer below is either lying or straight up trying to manipulate the conversation. the explanation for ai has always been that the ai dreams an image, it has inspiration but it mostly generates it out of prompts and can take reference from shit it has looked at, this is pretty identical to how humans operate, it's learned to do art and can make new art that just didn't exist, it's not just copy and pasting someone's old work, it's a whole new existence. sorry artists, it's the future and you have been replaced.
"sorry artists, it's the future and you have been replaced." Well go fuck yourself too then.
Truth. Just references. To make 1 image it pulls pixel location from thousands of pieces and artists. Way more than a human does when they reference other art. I get why ai “art” feels bad but calling it stealing isn’t the truth
It's sad, there needs to be a policy for things like this. Drawing by hand will be outdated. And it's sad.
If anything, drawing and painting on physical media is the main thing that will retain its value.
There's still a place for outdated skilled professions like cobblers, coopers, and blacksmiths, but it's not like it was back in their prime. It is sad, but that's just how it goes when the world changes.
Luddites that don't uderstand the root of the problem and just blame it on AI because is easy to do. NFT/Crypo is the issue, not AI. The current economic system where artists aren't appreciated is the issue, not AI. The commodification of Art, where it's value is deeply related to money laundering is the issue, not AI. The decadent entertainment industry is the issue, not AI. So on and so on. Sincerely, an artist.
Luddites, sir
I only hire real artists that grow their own cotton and weave their own canvas. They must grow the plants and make the ink for the paint too. Otherwise they're just modern day rip offs building off the work out others. Can they really make anything original if they buy ink from a store? And don't get me started on any alleged "artist" that uses Photoshop with all those plugins and filters and fancy tools that someone else wrote and they're just clicking a button.
From what I've heard there is a lot of ai art on artstation lately and they're not doing anything about it so artist are posting this picture as a form of protest.
Trying to keep the human element in art, right now no one has an fraudulently sourced ai database directly installed into a sculpting software, so yeah,
The AI generation is pretty amazing, but years of learnt editing and technique ia blown apart by a couple of days of AI generarion. So maybe this is why.
Not really, not at this point. Even with dreambooth AI is still far from overtaking the market just yet. Maybe in ~2 years though it might become stable enough for general use.
I can only talk from a non artist point of view, I think what you say here about in 2 or so years from so is also fair. However what do you think the reason for creative sites such as art station wanting to be rid of this on their platforms?
Well artists are VERY salty about AI right now - it's basically traditional vs digital, but amplified thorough drama enhancing algorithms of social media. And, of course, art gallery websites are quick to ban AI art to get that sweet community cred. Partly the hate is 50/50 justified, as concept and commission artists are already loosing jobs, but then again - nobody says a thing when less romanticised jobs get automated and employees booted. Basically what it boils down to is massive misinformation campaign on twitter, with everyone saying AI is evil photoshop, and fear of new technology. It'll pass in a year or two.
I can totally agree with this. Tech unfortunately somewhat always kills tradition. Elements of some tradtions are respected more because of the ground work put in to yield said results. I can very much see why the AI generation is hated on, I do wonder (considering how far tech has come in only the last 30 years or so) how far AI will go in terms of design. Its getting pretty damn creative for a bot system. Edit: seeing how fast things can be generated to a decent standard without a comparably huge amount of effort compared to working totally from the ground up is what I should have emphasized more in my first comment. I've been designing and also 3d modelling for around 2 years now (by no means anything impressive). A lot of AI generation makes me look at a lot of my work and wonder how much quicker an AI could have produced the same to the same around abouts quality.
>I can only talk from a non artist point of view Hahahahah yeah it shows lol.
So only artists have an opinion on art? This is an obnoxiously pretentious. Cheers for the input kiddo.
This reaction is even more dystopian than the tech itself is my god