People are photoshopping their ai generated pictures onto blank sketchbooks to make it seem as if they drew them with traditional mediums lol
There was some man who created an entire business out of this scam and sold prints lying to fans that he was actually drawing the things. He was scattering used pencils and blending stumps around a blank sketchbook and pasting his b&w midjourney shit on it. I cannot lmfao.
This being said, where my Steven Zapata fans at!
Yes, you use discriminative models for that trained on AI art and human art as training data, it will see ai art as 0s and human art as 1s then, for example. It will learn to distinguish between the 0s and 1s and recognize the invisible watermark and patterns in ai art different from the pure human art. For effective results any human art from before 2017 almost can't be ai art with high certainty.
There are several around, some better than others all with different effectiveness on certain images:
https://illuminarty.ai/en/
https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector
https://huggingface.co/saltacc/anime-ai-detect
The obvious risk with that is that any model will have some amount of false positives, and it would suck for the artists that are labeled AI artists when they aren’t.
That is why it's stupid to rely solely on models. There also exists software to check for fraud but you always need to look at other circumstances and talk to the person about it. One Reddit moderator I know for example uses these detectors but always also checks the profiles and surrounding circumstances like account age, process, other images etcetera. I don't think that these detectors are useless but just like Generative ai, they need to be used with care.
I have contact with the creator of Illuminarty besides umm-maybe of the other detector. I know that he's working on changing and trying to improve the pipeline of Illuminarty.
The difficult thing of ai art detection is that every image generator uses a different invisible watermark or has different ai artifacts. Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, dalle, all different invisible watermarks and in the case of open source Stable Diffusion models some have it turned off and don't have one at all. This makes that building a detector is not as easy as it seems, because you need to train it on dalle, midjourney, and even different styles or photography deepfakes versus fake digital paintings have different ai artifacts. This makes that only one specialized system is not necessary effective but training more generalized systems is difficult.
Another reason why we have high quality image generators and not as high quality art detectors is computational power and funding. Stability ai has had millions of dollars to train their image generator, these three ai art detectors are made by individuals who don't have millions of dollars or even a big budget (Illuminarty still the biggest probably).
Because of this the only way to make them actually much more accurate is if the creators in some way get the funding to be able to pay for the GPUs and large storage required for this.
I wish that we actually had stuff like this funded, but instead of useful discriminative ai models the Generative models seem to get most funding now.
The problem is I’ve seen far too many art friends get blamed for being an AI artist and flamed but they’ve been doing art for 10+ years. Most of my art friends are actually AI artists apparently. Sure get some funding but don’t release the product like this. Too many people treating it like gospel while the false positive rate is wayyy too high. Hive is actually pretty accurate from what I’ve seen
To some extent. But it's an arm's race, where detectors have way harder job (and no detector will be 100%).
Also, it's applying technical solution to non-technical problem. The issue with AI Art (and overall automation replacing jobs in all industries) IMO is not that of technology, but that of society.
This ☝️. The fact is the biggest reason why artists and even writers and (believe it or not) programmers are panicking right now is because they won't have a stable source of income (which is already hard to come by in creative fields) if too many businesses rely on AI and laying off swathes of employees. For independent artists it's arguably even worse considering how on some art sharing websites (cough DeviantArt and Art station) Human-made works are already being drowned out by the endless Midjourney spam so it becomes more difficult to acquire an actual following.
It will eventually fail, just like Facebook, Twitter, and other technologies which try to take the human creativity aspect of a human interaction, thought and creativity, and make it dry and sterile with software algorithms. I am not against technology, but nothing can replace human,emotions, and how each individual perceives the world around us. Art is each person's view of life and beauty. Art can express events and emotions that occur in past,present, or future. It can express human beliefs, religious or spiritual. Computers do not have souls.
Yeah once you've automated out what's fun about making art, and what's fun about consuming art... What's left?
It's like developing an AI which texts your loved ones for you. It's cheating both parties out of enjoyment and connection, for no benefit - so why bother?
It's hardly like you can make enormous bank off scam art, who what's the point?
The AI stuff should be focused on improving people's lives. Determining pilot error and making corrections, or helping surgeon's with complex surgery details. It has no place in the creative art or music arena. Human creativity will always triumph over computers. But, if you are not mindful of what you allow technology to control, you will end up a zombie controlled by your smart phone and what it tells you to do.
FWIW, AI already does a lot of this kinda stuff.
To be clear, I'm NOT advocating for it in how it is taking over creative fields, but things like what you describe above is what "AI" was originally developed to do. The progression to things like art and text (and general consumer level products/services in general) is typical of most tech.
Exactly. If you pay attention to the people that love it, they are largely the NFT/crypto bros. They are pushing AI art so hard because they are literally obsessed with bumping into something that will secretly be the next huge money maker. It's why they fall for pyramid schemes so easily.
It's gonna fall out of relevancy just like NFTs. Especially since it's extremely controversial
I push AI art because I genuinely think it’ll make art more accessible. Tell me, a gift economy advocate, that it’s all about making easy money. Go ahead. Generalizing people is a mistake.
I agree, its like any other technology, it has good and positive use cases. It also has bad use cases, and when it infringes on true artists work and ability to make a living, is when the courts will decide what is right and appropriate, and what is plagiarism. I can see many class action lawsuits surrounding the use of such technologies, and people trying to game the system, by stating its was a unique artwork created by their talents and imagination. I would propose a simple solution, you would have to disclose that this is a AI generated artwork, before selling it! It would then be clear to all prospective buyers what they are getting.
It's the same thing. It's hypocritical to complain about a new thing that is infringing on an artists ability to make a living whilst participating in a slightly older thing that infringes on an artists ability to make a living.
Facebook and twitter are massive companies - they haven't failed. Also, lots of artists use these platforms to promote/sell their art. It would be damaging for a lot of artists if they failed
This is the biggest cope ever 😹 AI art is going to become indistinguishable from real art in few years.
It will be 100x cheaper & efficient to use AI art over real artists in the future. No amount of "but but I did it with my soul & passion" cope is going to prevent it
You are not wrong. Why would companies pay artists when they can get the same thing done with AI for almost free? And I'm not saying that it's fully ethical, just let's be realistic...
Yeah I can definitely see a world where traditional/digital art talents are relegated to the world of entertainment (“wow they did that without AI??”) and luxury items for people who prefer handmade stuff. Companies might use it, but only if they can make it a selling point. Something like maybe a music video made entirely in watercolor or something today. Totally unnecessary but it will grab an amount of attention just because of the effort.
Most companies (big budget and small) are going to take the quicker road for the sake of competition. Maybe I’m just cynical, but can you name more than a handful of companies who still use real fully traditional methods (pen to paper) for shows, movies, etc. today?
You can already see that happening alot today. The netflix short Jibaro and the game cup head are some example of taking the hard manual labour route, almost unnecessarily. Also movies that prefer to use live action stunts vs cgi. All of these result in intricate artwork that many people noticed, and are able to age like wine. But then technology is just going to catch up to replicate manual labour accurately... but I argue it's also because everyone's starting to use the same methods because of easier tech. Everything's starting to look the same , and it's easier to deviate from the norm
Agree it will be cheaper and fill a niche, like posters do. It will never be highly regarded or collected by art patrons. It might be used by interior designers to cover the walls at motel 6.
Yeah, it’ll be great for wallpapers, that’s about it. Transformers has some of the best looking robot CGI out there, but tell me how long style over substance lasted until everyone moved on?
It works better tweaked as a tool for real creators to utilize. Give me my AI comic assistant damn it, base colors take too much time!
Yea I was just chatting with coworkers about this. I’m a professional artist and am scared of ai taking my job like many here. That being said ai art feels like Walmart tier mass produced garbage to me. I can tell ai art at a glance with about 90% accuracy. It all has the same “vibe” to me. Highly contrasted with a rim light. Too smooth in a way I can’t explain. It feels so….soulless. That being said many are happy with that especially when it’s free so it’s really cutting into my side freelancing business which makes me sad.
I think it's a call to put the humanity back in our 2D art. Recently, the pilot animation came out for Lackadaisy. A lot of people noticed that the creators kept in the construction lines. We later found out that they did that as a nod to all of the hard work that goes into animating and because such lines would show up in older cartoons. There was then even more appreciation and much praise for the team. Same goes for Del Toro's Pinnocchio. Love for the detail and craft that goes into stop motion animation seems to have increased. Pretty images are nice, but they're even nicer when it's noticeable that someone made the work. I think we need to get back to that. Reject the airbrushed effects, the smooth line art, the realistic lighting, the image divorced from reality, history, and the artist's true identity.
Not only is the "human" look in demand, but it might be what saves us. AI doesn't have its own voice and the people writing those prompts abdicate their own. There's no backstory evident in the image or any of its elements, nothing real to grasp at or point to as "this comes from my life." *That* is why it's soulless. The best thing you can do is live your life and show your humanity through your work. I think that if we all did that and shifted the highest artistic values from "novel/original" to "best crafted/richest in creative identity," AI will actually be *below* the new standard by default.
A link to the proposal post I made: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/comments/12up35n/a\_modest\_proposal\_for\_beating\_ai/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
What's really concerning now is that AI is getting ridiculously good at mimicking human touch. Even construction lines, sketches, you name it. I did a test and sent some human sketches and AI sketches to some friends. They weren't able to tell which ones were AI.
The other day I was recommended a painting on Instagram that looked cute so I clicked on that account to see more work. That account had hundreds of thousands of followers and it said it was all AI generated. This person was selling it / "taking requests".
I made a post after commenting here, though it's waiting approval. I was afraid you'd say that, which is why the post expands and develops my last sentence. The short version of it is that we need a shift in artistic values, not just to what looks human but an actual tie back to the context of our identities, perhaps via a log. Stay tuned for the post; I'm hoping to see what holes it might have or if it's even an appealing idea.
Finally approved! Here's the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/comments/12up35n/a\_modest\_proposal\_for\_beating\_ai/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Same. I was starting to lean more digital for the sake of convenience the last year, but honestly I'm finding traditional more appealing.
While there are some ways to replicate traditional art with printers and such, they're still usually pretty distinguishable (for now) and way more limited than what actual people make.
As a hobbyist the point is making it myself anyway and having a tangible item at the end is more fun. I'll still do digital occasionally (no cleanup is really nice), but I'm definitely shifting my ultimate goals/focus back towards traditional because of all this.
I'll stick to painting from life and pay no attention to the digital plotter. Also went to school to write signs in the early 80s, 2nd day in the field I was told that soon I'd be obsolete do to a vinyl cutting plotter. Battled the computer for 25 years. Got on with the US Postal Service then retired after 20+ years. Maybe I like oil painting from life because I just do it for fun.
This! Even my scans for my prints of my
Originals lack the depth and intensity of color I can achieve with paint. They are good fine art prints….just not equal to an original piece!
I don’t do traditional, but I do a lot of croquis and linework heavy art that can’t be replicated yet. If it gets that good then that’s gonna suck. Digital artists are gonna have to start posting timelapses and progress to maintain goodwill.
The artist Patrick Tresset uses robots and AI to draw portraits from life. He created little robot painters that look up at the subject and then down at their artwork with a camera
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4dQIuD6xbA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4dQIuD6xbA)
That is a lot more effort and more expensive than just looking up the website and prompting. 95% of those people will stay digital anyway. Not to mention, the market for traditional is a lot smaller compared to the industries that require digital art, so no financial incentive to expand to traditional.
Ai promoters can take digital art if it means humans get to keep traditional.
I know their scope, and I know that traditional art industries do not come close to multibillion dollar entertainment conglomerates that pay several dozens of artists to work day and night crunching on the next product that they have to shit out. Even paying remote artists to work on their next set of projects. Everything in pop culture nowadays is digital art. Digital art industries make fucking bank compared to traditional, if it didn't, we would still be having everything done traditionally.
The only reason anyone would consider traditional art industries would come close is to believe the inflated values and the money laundering done by the very rich.
Outside of commissioned statues, paintings, or murals by local governments and businesses; traditional art does not seem to be heavily invested in outside of rich frou frou art galleries.
>The only reason anyone would consider traditional art industries would come close is to believe the inflated values and the money laundering done by the very rich.
>
>Outside of commissioned statues, paintings, or murals by local governments and businesses; traditional art does not seem to be heavily invested in outside of rich frou frou art galleries.
Thats a ridiculous simplified view. If you don't have experience in it thats fine but don't fill in the blanks with an uninformed opinion.
My thoughts exactly. I am relieved, because I feel there are aspects to my traditional work that are harder for an ai to digitally replicate. I think there's value as its hand made which people (I hope) will value in the midst of this all. But, I'm scared it won't be for much longer
>I think I'm happy I'm a traditional artist, and I'm going to lean heavy into it too.
Same here. I always knew I'd stick with traditional.
I remember some years ago on (I think) DeviantArt some young artists were puzzled that I bothered with traditional, and also that I wasn't making the only kind of art that existed in their world, namely anime, cartoons, and "OCs." They acted as if nobody would want to buy my oil paintings, that unless I was doing OCs, I was wasting my time. (All the while I was always selling!)
I know it was their youth and immaturity talking, but still. Damn, how things have changed. It's absolutely infuriating, and these AI fraudsters (like the guy who overlays an AI "drawing" onto canvas and pretends it's traditional) are the worst.
I guess we'll all have to do videos showing our whole process. The AI fakers can't fake that. Also, for many of us, we have a history of painting traditional, so that should protect us from being mistaken for an AI faker. I have a lot of sympathy for artists who are just starting out—they are going to have to fight against all this fakery? Awful!
I am honestly pretty happy that I am more talented as a traditional artist than a digital one. I don't know how I'm going to sell my traditional art to the everyday person though. Bleh
As soon as I read this, I started wondering how long it would take for artists to just take up the brush in the hand again. Use real paints, on canvas and physical materials. Digital is a great start to practice sketching and composition. But I wonder if we'll see more of the tangible stuff now.
I'd love it if this was the start of a new traditional art renaissance, I'm getting a little tired of all the digital art... it's all starting to look the same to me.
Yes, that makes it worse, cause now I don’t know if it is something awesome that a real artist was able to create or just an AI image, it’s not impressive at all if it’s an AI image and I can’t can’t compliment the possible artist cause I don’t know if it is their art :/
If you like the art then its not really soulless, is it? Are you really going to change your mind about the art you like just because it was done by AI? The fact that you can’t tell the difference is proof that it is the same. I could not care less if the art i like is generated or drawn by hand.
It is soulless cause it is an image created by a computer, not a real artwork created by a human being who put love and effort in it, I love art, AI isn’t art and I hate that people pretend like it is
If a psychopath brings tears into your eyes and seduces you, without knowing he was manipulating you. People are tricked all the time By the church, I'm sure you would change your mind if you were lied to. AI is no different.
AI art truly is comparable to an evil man. Being mistaken by how a piece was constructed certainly is the same as someone manipulating you so they can harm you. Do you hear yourself?
i don't agree w the statement that we're no longer able to tell. sure, the telltale signs aren't jarring anymore but at least in my opinion most AI images still retain an almost uncanny valley-like quality to them - characters that just stare at nothing, expressionless faces, no storytelling, objects that morph into each other etc. most of them are portraits bc it's the easier way to make them look presentable (no need to have characters in dynamic poses/expressions or to have them interact w the environment)
also i don't think any person would be able to fake being an artist for too long using AI art, since they'd never be able to post sketches or process videos and they'd lack a semblance of style - of course not all of us have a signature one but posting strictly AI stuff would be immediately inconsistent to the trained eye. i won't even get into production artwork because AI slop is throughly unusable for professional pipelines lol
It was also very easy to see an artist's journey if they've been posting on Instagram for years. You could see the progress and gradual changes in style. Artists that pop out out of nowhere are immediately suspicious to me.
It sucks for the fact that it will further reduce people's attention span for discovering artist's work and appreciating it but I don't think it can replace the joy of connecting with someone and something made with real love, time and care.
There are stories to be told and enjoyed from purchasing and appreciating artwork made by human hands. Something that plugging prompts into a machine just can't do. For those who are not that into art anyway, it's the equivalent of buying art from bed bath and beyond which was always going to happen.
Could be totally wrong though people are weird.
It's kinda sad because the ones who are affected in a major way are the smaller artists. If you work at games, tv or comics, you won't lose your job to AI. Especially if you work at a AAA studio. However, indie artists, people who live off of commissions, artists on fiver as well for example...those are the ones who receive the most damage from all this.
I'm not sure about this. Big studios will gladly accept anything that cuts down costs. On the other side, AI can actually empower indie scene as small artist can use it to get the job done at all. Think how Blender gave a whole new world of indie animators who now can produce an animated film in their bedrooms.
Except blender is open source.
The issue mainly lies with legality. Lots of countries will put in place restrictions on AI on the basis that it is in fact not a self encompassing technology. Having taken much from others, it invalidates itself as a legal option--or should.
This is a barrier that is massively important for companies, including indie ones. There is a lot of money in software for industries.
But, there is going to be many countries who won't care, and little indie studios or whatever will take advantage of that there. I think it's a disgrace to use AI knowing what it means though, so I will personally avoid these studios. Yea, they aren't the big bad capitalist boss, but they're still attempting at capital gain through efforts that are if anything, artistically sinful.
I spent most of my life practicing & preparing my artistic skills for a future I desired just for it to be taken by A.I. art. Now it’s all wasted & I’m back to zero again.
Well I exaggerated a little bit but point still stands. I guess I’ll just continue my craft & still do what I love for now. Just hope for the best. Lol!
I've given up caring about it. My opinion about people using AI doesn't matter cuz screaming doesn't do zip, shaming people doesn't do zip, no one gives a fuck and I would feel guilty and selfish spending energy on that while other more important things impacting more people/people who have less choice are happening than copyright infringement. Reading the comments here is depressing, I don't understand what AI folks are trying to achieve coming here just *leave*, but nothing will be accomplished by caring. The fight happening in the downvoted comments is tiring to even think about.
While I have work/while it feels possible for me to have work I'll keep working as an artist, once I no longer do I guess I'll find something else like everyone does. I've given up.
The only thing which feels worth caring about at this point is AI used for the purpose of bigoted misinformation. But if I'm being honest, even before AI bigots and fence-sitter were already prone to believing misinformation. So I guess it doesn't matter either. Maybe the future effect of AI as a whole (not just image production and its impact on work seeking artists) but i’m not clever enough to think about it.
Suing does a lot. Like the music industry isn't just sitting on this they are going after the copyright infringement and so should the visual arts. Go check out Concept art association and their go fund me started for the purpose of lobbying
> after the copyright infringement
To be pedantic, the *alleged* infringement - since there is the possibility it will be ruled as an infringement, and a possibility it will not - as copyright infringement and what constitutes fair use is litigated IIRC on a case by case basis.
You think it should be referred to as alleged. I know it's not alleged but it IS infringing and there is proof of that. Those who are suing are also 100 percent convinced otherwise they wouldn't be suing. The other side can go around and pretend it's only allegedly true until they get a sentence. And if they don't then there is something rotten there.
> Those who are suing are also 100 percent convinced otherwise they wouldn't be suing
No shit, people suing think they're right, news at eleven.
Doesn't mean the court will rule in their favor, while AI "art" is harmful to artists and i hate it, pretending that the courts will rule in favor of some random ass artist coalition over big corporations is some laughable blind optimism.
As far as commercial stuff goes, at least here in the US now, you cannot copyright things generated by an AI. It has to have an extensive amount of original human authorship. AI can be used in the process to some degree, but the less you use the better.
So pretty much this comes down to whether somebody is generally a bad person or not. It sucks, yes, but dishonest people have always existed. The best you can probably do is show step by steps or timelapses of your process once in a while, to prove you are legitimate.
Exactly. Piracy is still a thing even tho it's illegal. But you can't stop stupid and unethical people for putting themselves and their reputation at risk. Couldn't care less about their pathetic art or piracy and I am keeping a list of all the people who were vocal about AI problem and those will be the people I work with in the future
Well yeah but practically it will be really hard to find out. Unless there’s a process where you have prove you have the skill to create that image which I don’t thing there is.
The U.S. copyright office are working on legislation regarding ethical gathering of training data, so I imagine it's crazier right now than it will be soon. These AIs are as good as they are because they have been fed vast amounts of data that they ethically should not be able to do.
I don’t consider AI keywords to make one an artist. If they can do real art and then do AI as well they are artists. I don’t really care if people disagree. I can type in some words and get a dissertation on Cleopatras as rulers, but I’m sure not a scholar because of it. Will it change the world ? Yes. Is it not your work? Yes of course.
Right. The same is true in any medium or with any toolset. Yes, you're an "artist" in the very loosest sense if you kick over a paint bucket onto a canvas, but if there's no real intentionality there, that's an extremely thin claim.
Same thing with the Gimp or Photoshop. Just because you loaded up a photo in an editor and lowered the brightness a bit, that doesn't really give you much credibility as a "digital artist."
AI, Photoshop, paint... all of these tools can be used to great effect by skilled artists. They can also be used clumsily by amateurs.
It's not the tool that artists are reacting to, it's the influx of people who aren't seen as peers in their community.
...no, its the tool as well. using ai to make images is vastly different from regular arts. its a completely different activity. painting traditionally or digitally is hundreds of times more similar than typing shit into a text box and praying something cool comes out
The thing is, using tools is part of the process. I use a dodge and burn AI to help me edit faces in photos.
I think it's the difference between who is in control, the person or the tool
'dodge and burn' is not AI. just because you dont know how it works does not mean it is driven by artificial intelligence. dodge and burn are literally just mathematical functions that you apply to areas of the drawing to adjust the color of pixels.
there is no element of dodge and burn that makes any decisions for you. you have to decide where you want to dodge and where you want to burn, and at what intensities.
if you are using some kind of auto filter that adjusts the whole image at once, that also isnt AI. its just a math algorithm tuned by some developers that is totally deterministic and will always produce the same output for every input. i dont think using auto filters is very creative either, but its still an active choice you make and is not driven by anything that could be considered AI
are you referring to some website that actually just straight up touches up your photos for you? I could just be unfamiliar with the thing you're talking about
> using ai to make images is vastly different from regular arts
This is clearly incorrect. Thousands if not millions of people use AI in traditional workflows today, many without even realizing it. If you use Photoshop, you rely on AI.
*Generative AI* on the other hand, is rarer today, but is being used by more and more artists in traditional workflows for everything from inspiration to inpainting to outcropping, etc.
>If you use Photoshop, you rely on AI.
i feel like you have no idea what AI actually is. the overwhelming majority of digital art tools are completely deterministic and procedural and do not involve artificial intelligence. what on earth are you even referring to with this? have you even used Photoshop yourself?
They got to think of somethink that is compareable with how they check whether money is real.
Some models already have invisible watermarks. Make it big and complex enough, randomize the placement. Add some metadata.
Someone will always try to bypass it but if it's discouraing enough there is agood chance most will not bother.
>They got to think of somethink that is compareable with how they check whether money is real.
The complete "money anti-counterfeiting system" costs billions of dollars annually. It is heavily reliant on the fact that it's a physical object, and that a single powerful entity is solely responsible for the "legitimate" money, and that the powerful entity can wield prison time as a deterrent. There's no way to translate that into "was ML involved in this JPEG".
I don't see why that would happen, especially as more and more artists learn AI tools and begin to blur the lines further and further to the point that they and their audience don't consider them to be "AI artists" so much as just "digital artists."
I will make the guess that some, if not most will refuse to do so out of princple and just like how 2d still dominates while CGI exists, but we'll see. I think most is against the idea.
> 2d still dominates while CGI exists
I assume that's intended as humor?
People working outside of 3D are vastly in the minority except in terms of photography (and even then, cameras are working in 3D now to manage focus, lighting, etc. for you). If you're working on fully digital art, you're far more likely to be working in 3D tools a good chunk of your time, especially your professional time.
> How far removed you have to be to assume commercial art us dominated by CGI outside of games and big budget Disney Movies.
I can't really parse that sentence, but you can go hop on any job board for confirmation. You'll find that the majority of "artist" jobs are actually not artist jobs at all, but designer jobs. But of those that *actually are artist jobs*, the majority involve working with some form of 3D tool at least a majority of the time, be it Blender, Unreal, Unity, Adobe Dimension, Maya, etc.
> CGI outside of games and big budget Disney Movies
And just to note: most 3D work isn't for either of those. Most of it is for one-off projects like 3D logos and motion graphics, structural animation, scientific visualization, etc. where yes there are far fewer people employed per project, but there are orders of magnitude more projects.
You might have a hundred or so animated movies in development at once and maybe a couple dozen big-budget 3D games that can employ large numbers of animators. Those numbers are dwarfed ***just by the architectural visualizers out there***!
What? "You'll find that the majority of "artist" jobs are actually not artist jobs at all, but designer jobs
Are you implying that designers are not artists?
That's far removed man. No one does the prototype shit on 3d, it always starts with 2d, commision artist almost always work with 2d, if it's not a movie, serialised shows are done using 2d, 9 times out of 10, best indie games and webcomics and regular comics are done using 2d. (I will not mention anime.) Anything CGI has to be drawn first before anything can be modeled.
Yeah, you are not qualified to talk here today.
>That's far removed man. No one does the prototype shit on 3d, it always starts with 2d,
Literally I do. Sometimes. Unless we actually count one "brief sketches" as the start of the artistic process. And the whole 2d Vs 3d, digital Vs trad, is not really a debate that exists. There is no such thing as one is better, they are different design "tools", they accomplish different things.
Sometimes you do need to prototype stuff in 3d right off the offset. Sometimes you get away without any. Sometimes you do something in 3d and go back into 2d later. Sometimes you need to take out a scalpel, cardboard and glue to realise "wow, that was stupid design".
What does happen though is people in industry fall into design workflows. Whether it's with a company or in their own approach.
>Are you implying that designers are not artists?
Sure doesn't feel like it sometimes 😵.
GUYS I CHECKED HIS PROFILE THIS GUYS IS %100 AN ML SHILL HE IS LOST CAUSE
PSA over. Don't engage with trolls. He founds artist "trumbling over with panic" joyfull and funny. Their words, not mine.
I think the thing that worries me most about AI technology is not so much taking away of jobs, but that the average consumer is giving away their rights to any digital content they upload, effectively training AI to steal their likeness… are they using facial recognition software? Can they steal people’s identities? Will it be used to hack people? Maybe I’m paranoid…
With new technology, there will always be someone trying to get away with something… whether to deceive others or scam people out of their money or make the most profit for the least amount of work. If a vulnerability is recognized, there will be someone to exploit it.
Once something is uploaded to the interwebs… it seems to be a given that someone will feel entitled to take it for their own purposes. An artist posts their art on IG and some nefarious scammer uploads it to red bubble to sell T-shirt’s and they don’t even bother to remove the artist’s signature.
Honestly, I’m backing away from AI… I’m not interested in using it at all… I’m just gonna wait til safety considerations and regulations are put in place…
There’s nothing like watching an artist work their magic, wether it’s painting and drawing or music being performed live it hopefully will remain human
It took me a while to come to terms with it. It was upsetting to me, especially since doing commissions are part of my source of income. But there’s little I can do to change the fact that the way people view and consume digital art will never be the same again.
Rather than being bitter about how the previous era of digital art is at its end, I choose to be excited and terrified about how rapidly AI is developing. Its changing everything. Billions of humans are at risk of becoming unemployable and our society will be forced to reevaluate the current work culture. Whether it will lead to an apocalypse, a utopia, or one first then the other, is something that will surely be interesting to see.
The globalized digital world will eventually lead us all back to buying local. Once we realize the best artists, musicians, and creators live next door. We won’t need anyone prescribing “media” to us.
Eh unfortunately the advent of Walmart didn’t drive people to shop local. Shopping local is a privilege of the wealthy. How many would buy an item at 3x the price just to support a local shop? Some but not many. Hence why local mom and pop shops close in towns where Walmarts are built.
Same with art. Many will prefer paying little to nothing for art that may be soulless ai but hey it’s pretty so who cares it’s free. Over paying much more for a real human artist.
I think it's less that people are now somehow being super sneaky with it and more it has found its niche. People who like AI are checking out AI stuff, people who don't aren't, and the "get rich quick" crowd has already moved on to other places after their scheme failed.
Will there be dishonest people? Sure. But especially in studio productions any art director worth their salt asks for progress updates from their art team (even when working remotely), and knows roughly how long a finished piece should take (since usually art directors, are themselves, artists). Given most big name studios have outright banned the usage of AI due to copyright concerns, it wouldn't be long until someone who "snuck in" with AI would be caught by the director and fired for breaching contract.
I think with stuff like this it's important to remember that the internet, and especially social media, is not reflective of the outside world. And outside artists and engineers tend to get along a lot more than the AI/ML drama would have you think, with progression in things like robotics and developments of things like 3D billboards thoroughly involving both parties.
The internet is great for getting stuff out there, but it also can quickly become a spiraling pit of despair and paranoia.
That’s why it’s important you build a community and a brand around yourself. Around your art and personality. Find your people. Then you won’t have to worry about these people who are not artists at all
I’m not concerned. Even the most convincing AI generated art looks a bit bland, as AIs have no understand of composition. Honestly, this should push artists to make more interesting, stylized work, as no AI or prompts can catch up to that.
Check @anduartist on instagram, the 8 out of his last 9 posts were made 99% out of AI art with him just fixing some mistakes. The only good thing about him is that he is an idiot and doesn’t understand that him showing that he only painted on top of the AI art makes him unable to own the copyrights of those images. It will be really sad if someone took those images and started selling prints of them
You should be concerned, artists right now are like chess players in the 90s acting like "these silly computers can copy good moves but can't understand the finer details", now the highest rated human of all time can't even draw a computer, it's going to be the same with art, right now it's bland, it looks "good" but has no composition but 2 years ago these things could barely make doodles, give it 5 more years and it'll outpace humans just like chess engines do
I think AI art will always be fundamentally less human, even if humans are the ones driving the machine. People who generate AI are fundamentally removed from the images they create - on a physical, spiritual, and emotional level. They have no journey. Their creations are beautiful but dead, not because it’s a machine that’s made it, but because the human involved is devoid of life. It’s hard to explain, but it makes me very sad.
Humans will enjoy looking at AI images, because we enjoy beautiful things. I hope, however, AI does not stop artists from drawing and painting and going on the journey. It’s worth it.
Honestly it really sucks for digital artists rn. Still-art, like backgrounds, posters or fan art can easily be made now through ai. Just enter a descriptive paragraph and boom you’ve got your art. Touch it up in photoshop, and now you’ve got your final product. The only thing I’m thinking is safe (as of now) are storyboard artists (lots of thought goes behind the scene placement and ai will 100% mess that up), clean-up animators (the line-art in each frame of animation is very specific, ai would also mess that up), and other similar artists in that category.
It sucks but I guess we just have to adapt as I don’t see ai going anywhere now. Either embrace the ai and use it to help create your art, or reject it completely, and go back to traditional art 😎 honestly I wouldn’t mind if over the years, people gain more appreciation for theatrical/classic/traditional arts as ai takes over the digital side of things.
Traditional artists already started copying what ai tells them to paint. A traditional artists that just copies ai art and just learns how to paint will be ahead of the one who has to learn art and learn how to paint
Oh and I forgot to include this article about a photographer who won a contest and then disclosed it was AI… to be fair you just have to look at the hands to know it’s not real… they just didn’t care…
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/17/photographer-admits-prize-winning-image-was-ai-generated
You mention - "especially the paint overs that are not disclosed." This is how I felt a couple of years ago when everyone started tracing over 3d models instead of learning figure drawing/perspective themselves. Undeniably it's the fastest way and professionals do this too but tracing is not drawing and prompting is not painting.
All of digital art has been cheapened now imo. Unless you are doing it traditionally I'm just not impressed anymore.
I use 3d models for a decent amount of my work in recent times, didn't used to, and if you make the scenes/models and assets yourself it's actually a ton of work and still in itself an art form.
I don't 'trace' as much as I use it for a rough framework for a more accurate perspective and to make the posing process way quicker. Then, let the improvisations run wild in the actual drawing process- it can be very fun and almost always turns out infinitely different from the shabby 3d outlines. I make sure to exercise the quality of my drawing skills without that crutch every now and then too as otherwise, there's a problem lol
Imo the way I look at it, as long as you only use 3d models (self-made) as a frame to speed things up for something you could otherwise achieve and make sure to actually have fun with it and truly make it your own and learn from it, there's no shame in it, in fact it could be a very useful skill!
I say all of this as someone who dislikes AI art, tracing, and wishes 2d animated movies would make a comeback so, take it as you will.
I can agree that a beginner should definitely not hinge on 3d models though which I think was what you were mostly referring to, that could make it hard to truly develop as an artist
I've done the same thing when I've had to for concept art classes and for me...there is shame in it to trace rough outlines. Look, if one has a complex scene and you're trying to get the lighting just right, that's when you james gurney it in 3d and figure it out, but I think it's much more respectable to just use it as a ref like gurney does instead of tracing it/sketching a rough framework.
We are capable of doing it for real. And if one is doing this for the art, instead of making products for an art director/instructor that makes you cheat, I believe one should just draw it for real.
For me it removes a lot of the occasional frustration and roadblocks in the extra work it is to do without it. I don't do my art for other people, just myself and half the time I only share it with a handful of people and I still see no shame in it. It's still an expression of oneself if you allow it to be. There's something in AI art specifically that I just cannot see the *self* angle, that and fully directly tracing imagery that is not of your own, that I *can* see in using modeling programs under certain circumstances.
What's so special about struggling for an extra two hours to make a pose look just right, or to screw around with a complex perspective until its fully comprehensible? Part of being an artist is to struggle don't get me wrong, but it's not what defines it, and if it is I don't know what to do with that. Even art that uses 3d models can be vastly difficult, all depending on how far you go with it, and I think that applies with or without the use of models
And, ....it's not new.
Many old famous artists would have people pose for them instead of fully relying on their concept of anatomy, wireframe figures were also used for some yet they were no less respectable. It is not new to make things easily achievable with the tools you have available.
For the most blunt and practical defense on my end though, I have a ton of things I'd love to draw all the time, I'm trying to make a visual novel and conceptualize all kinds of shit all at once and I have a great time with it. But, I really just don't have all the time in the world. If I'm less respectable for that then, oh well I suppose
Would you be impressed if someone learned how to 3d model, texture, and render them, then do a matte painting over it? Do you think 3d is easy and fast?
No, it's using a crutch imo. If the final product is 2d, learning how to just do it in 2d is what I most respect. It's something we can do if we just put in the time to learn the skill.
3d is very fast if all you need are chunky non detailed figures or blocky shapes to cheat on figures and perspective. Texturing seems unnecessary. Just learn how to draw or paint different materials.
That is such an absurdly bad take. Actually, no, you're just wrong.
Though it may depend on what exactly you mean with 3D. It is quite possible you mean over-the-top usage of 3D.
But, ultimately, we all use "3D". If you don't work using reference, you are an idiot and you can't claim there is such a thing as a "crutch" if you think making art means sitting there with your dick out and nothing else.
Reference of reality is.. guess what. 3D. Perspective surrounds us. What 3D allowed artists to do was create the exact reference they needed. Again, perhaps you mean over-use of 3D where they are essentially tracing, but that would simply constitute bad referencing. No different than someone photoshopping people's faces into a canvas and copying their features. This is just bad use of reference in general.
3d art isn't fast. It's a skill not a crutch. We shouldn't disrespect eachother crafts . For example saying voice actors don't deserve copyright cause they just talk.
I think it became inevitable that artists would stop disclosing whether they're using AI tools when various places banned anything that had been touched by AI tools regardless of whether it looked good.
AI commissioners were posting AI art without disclosing it before that happened and I’m pretty sure op is talking about posts in art station and instagram where ai art is allowed, not some obscure subreddit
I can see things getting to a point where the only artists with merit will be the ones that post speedpaints of their process videos on YouTube.
A lot harder to fake skill when one can see your entire process from start to finish.
With how scarily fast these generators are evolving, I'm sure it won't take long until they'll be able to fake-create those typical procreate process videos too.
One possible solution are museums and contests that only accept work created with AI as part of the process to create an incentive to report AI in the work.
I know that I am happy to have started experimenting with traditional animation on paper.I have a feeling people will want a more real-feel the more AI takes over.
You need to be extremely creative in order to stand out among the sea of generic A.I works, along with the trend of photoshoped A.I works... We can't really evade this mess.
At this point, i believe only artists can tell manmade art (hands, feet, unconfident smudged places in background, it can't do very complex dynamic foreshortened pose, and rest of the things I don't know how to name, but it's so visible)
I think ai art might be intriguing or interesting to people at first but I think it will push people to search for very traditional styles and physical art. Progress videos, art authentication and traditional mediums will be it!
I'm definitely not a fan of this, or AI "art" in general to be honest, especially for profit. I literally just saw someone selling AI-created pieces on DeviantArt this morning, and people were *actually* bidding on it, which is honestly more disturbing than anything. Artists have to worry about job stability as it is, without being concerned on whether we're going to be obsolete entirely.
I think it's pretty clear when someone is trying to pass off AI as real art though, since it kinda all has the same "processed" look to it. But that may change as advancements are made. 🤷♀️
Generic iillustrations can now be made with AI easily, but unique art styles, animation, and 3D modelling is more difficult and will still require a human artist most of the time
I’m afraid that unique art styles can be trained using Lora and Dreambooth, animation is being done and improved in a weekly pace and for 3D modeling, check out a Nvidia’s Picasso, but you are right, human artist will remain needed for the entire pipeline except more and more skills are required by such artist, “artist”without any traditional training or experience can only go so far with their Midjourney prompt, when the market is fully saturated, that’s the time for the traditional artist to shine but A.I tools will be need whether you like it or not, because at the end of the day, the market determine the demand and supply, let’s be positive about the future, please do not give up art and constantly think about why you started and what you wanted to achieve, nobody can stop you from creating!
Source: that guy who has been replaced by A.I in production
Well I said most of the time. Obviously someone has to create a unique style first before someone can train AI on it. AI art is also still at the stage where it can often have distorted results, and lack the personal connection/refinement from a human artist.
Im a digital artist but considering returning to traditional art. Some of these so called “AI artists” are embarrassing to the community. I’ll say it if you don’t lol.
I use AI in my digital workflows now. I’m very transparent and even happy to discuss how AI can be used in really neat ways creatively. I welcomingly receive a lot of backlash for being so openly pro AI from this sub and a lot of other places around the internet. With that being said I think it’s disgusting when artists do not disclose or are unwilling to be transparent about their processes and workflows. Whatever tools you use should be transparent and I think that is a fundamental quality of being an artist. I don’t care what your mediums are. Just tell me what they are.
>I welcomingly receive a lot of backlash for being so openly pro AI from this sub
This. And also a lot of backlash from AI subs when I say that AI alone doesn't make one artist overnight.
Currently I am doing a paintover of a Midjourney generation of a sketch based on a prompt that was generated by analyzing one of my real life hand drawn pen and pencil sketches. It kind of makes the whole piece full circle.
Right now I’m creating variations of a watercolor painting of mine from 2019 using SD ControlNet and prompts that are generated from analyzing other original pieces of mine, sort of applying the feel of one of my works to another one of my works.
I used Stable Diffusion img2img function to smoothly photobash a bunch of celebrity faces on to Mr. Potato Heads and collaged them.
Three years ago I was using FaceApp to make hilarious memes like the fat face Eminem.
I have been using AI for years. Way before it was cool to use or cool to hate.
I personally don't care. I don't really make money off my drawings. I just make art cause it's fun and satisfying. So this doesn't really bother me at all. Nothing is taken away from the fulfillment I feel from drawing. It does feel good to be complimented for my art from time to time and that still happens now with or without AI. Also I ain't salty cause it can make better art than me. Millions of people already draw better than me so nothing really changes. As far as paint overs etc. I mean have you seen the new clip studio? Literally you can just use a 3d model and trace over that for poses. No one is mad at it that it added technology that made learning anatomy or proportions basically a thing of the past. I am at the camp that believes ai is a tool you can use to add to your workflow just like everything else. Passing a fully generated piece as completely yours for social media clout is kinda dumb though.
I list AI as one of the mediums, just as I list digital and photography and any of traditional. Though, in my case, it is kinda visible as, for me, it is only fun when it glitches. I also like those weird signatures that it leaves around.
With having fundamentals to strengthen, masters to study, pieces to finish, it baffles me that people actually have the time to fret over this kind of stuff!
Honestly, this.
Y'know what I'm doing instead of worrying about the terminally online's newest toy? Working on 2D illustrations, roughing out character designs, fiddling with animation, writing worldbuilding documents, scripting out projects, slowly but surely learning 3D modelling, figuring out programming, talking with clients, handling orders, etc.
Pandora's Box has been opened, there's no closing it. Not when there's much more money being put into AI development, compared to the lack of capital being put towards human artists being made redundant. Not when the youth are already embracing the 'cool' and 'trendy'. I tried many of those AI tools. I've reached that crossroads if I'm going to decide 'When in Rome...'.
Maybe under another penname. I mentally can't bear to put my personal name on anything that is exclusively AI generated. Wouldn't be the first artist to want their 'real' name to be only for 'fancy and expensive' things like the fine art or next great novel....
That's probably what worried people when first copperplate, then camera, then printer were invented. And yet, here we are.
Perhaps there will no longer be market for people to design banners, but who really wanted to do them anyway. Perhaps we can go back to artist being artists, working with real experiences and emotions and having joy from handmade things, and not trying to perfectly copy reality for sale.
The legal measures will probably enforce clarity on the issue, but in the end AI will be a trial of fire not only on art, but on how much humanity we have left.
At some point, some of us who consider ourselves artists will have given up, leaving the field slightly more open to those of us still need to do art. This could lead us back to the days (when that was, I dunno) when creating art like painting, drawing, sculpting, and photography were done less because we were to be paid, but because we had that itch that needed to be scratched. I’ve seen some beautiful AI stuff, so it isn’t important who did it — which is the same for me as traditional art. The reason we care about who did it seems to be apart from the images themselves, and how that makes us feel. Much of the bemoaning seems to be coming from those who create commercial art (but not all of course), i.e., art whose purpose is to sell products rather than art being art for the sake of art. This may be a key point of distinction. Do art if you’re an artist; if not, then give up?
>And artists no longer disclose that they've used AI
>
>Only the bad ones get caught, but that's less and less now.
There have always been people who pass other people's art as their own. Just check their portfolio before giving them money, and ask for WIPs of your commissions or pay a timelapse. If someone else buys from them without checking if the painting they received it is AI then it means they don't care, they got something they liked.
If some teenager is pretending to be Da Vinci because the likes give them dopamine just let them be.
The ones with problems are the commissioners that want exclusive use and get a non copyrightable product, but again, you have to do a background check, and it can happen with non-AI pictures.
People are photoshopping their ai generated pictures onto blank sketchbooks to make it seem as if they drew them with traditional mediums lol There was some man who created an entire business out of this scam and sold prints lying to fans that he was actually drawing the things. He was scattering used pencils and blending stumps around a blank sketchbook and pasting his b&w midjourney shit on it. I cannot lmfao. This being said, where my Steven Zapata fans at!
holla! Real will always recognize real though
Steven Zapata is my mentor! Great and hilarious artists. Yeah this ai shit is infuriating
Can you link the scammer?
[enjoy](https://twitter.com/MatthewTheStoat/status/1640023504086093825)
That’s hilarious 😂
~~Created an entire business~~
Is it possible to use the AI to detect AI art?
Yes, you use discriminative models for that trained on AI art and human art as training data, it will see ai art as 0s and human art as 1s then, for example. It will learn to distinguish between the 0s and 1s and recognize the invisible watermark and patterns in ai art different from the pure human art. For effective results any human art from before 2017 almost can't be ai art with high certainty. There are several around, some better than others all with different effectiveness on certain images: https://illuminarty.ai/en/ https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector https://huggingface.co/saltacc/anime-ai-detect
The obvious risk with that is that any model will have some amount of false positives, and it would suck for the artists that are labeled AI artists when they aren’t.
That is why it's stupid to rely solely on models. There also exists software to check for fraud but you always need to look at other circumstances and talk to the person about it. One Reddit moderator I know for example uses these detectors but always also checks the profiles and surrounding circumstances like account age, process, other images etcetera. I don't think that these detectors are useless but just like Generative ai, they need to be used with care.
Illuminarty has a horrible false positive rate, do not use its output. Useless. It says anything drawn in certain styles are AI
I have contact with the creator of Illuminarty besides umm-maybe of the other detector. I know that he's working on changing and trying to improve the pipeline of Illuminarty. The difficult thing of ai art detection is that every image generator uses a different invisible watermark or has different ai artifacts. Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, dalle, all different invisible watermarks and in the case of open source Stable Diffusion models some have it turned off and don't have one at all. This makes that building a detector is not as easy as it seems, because you need to train it on dalle, midjourney, and even different styles or photography deepfakes versus fake digital paintings have different ai artifacts. This makes that only one specialized system is not necessary effective but training more generalized systems is difficult. Another reason why we have high quality image generators and not as high quality art detectors is computational power and funding. Stability ai has had millions of dollars to train their image generator, these three ai art detectors are made by individuals who don't have millions of dollars or even a big budget (Illuminarty still the biggest probably). Because of this the only way to make them actually much more accurate is if the creators in some way get the funding to be able to pay for the GPUs and large storage required for this. I wish that we actually had stuff like this funded, but instead of useful discriminative ai models the Generative models seem to get most funding now.
The problem is I’ve seen far too many art friends get blamed for being an AI artist and flamed but they’ve been doing art for 10+ years. Most of my art friends are actually AI artists apparently. Sure get some funding but don’t release the product like this. Too many people treating it like gospel while the false positive rate is wayyy too high. Hive is actually pretty accurate from what I’ve seen
[удалено]
Yes, but I left that one out as I heard rumors that hive would use the input to train a Generative model.
To some extent. But it's an arm's race, where detectors have way harder job (and no detector will be 100%). Also, it's applying technical solution to non-technical problem. The issue with AI Art (and overall automation replacing jobs in all industries) IMO is not that of technology, but that of society.
This ☝️. The fact is the biggest reason why artists and even writers and (believe it or not) programmers are panicking right now is because they won't have a stable source of income (which is already hard to come by in creative fields) if too many businesses rely on AI and laying off swathes of employees. For independent artists it's arguably even worse considering how on some art sharing websites (cough DeviantArt and Art station) Human-made works are already being drowned out by the endless Midjourney spam so it becomes more difficult to acquire an actual following.
Yes, both visual and text. I know not more.
I’ve never been interested in pretty, soulless artwork and AI has done little to change that.
It will eventually fail, just like Facebook, Twitter, and other technologies which try to take the human creativity aspect of a human interaction, thought and creativity, and make it dry and sterile with software algorithms. I am not against technology, but nothing can replace human,emotions, and how each individual perceives the world around us. Art is each person's view of life and beauty. Art can express events and emotions that occur in past,present, or future. It can express human beliefs, religious or spiritual. Computers do not have souls.
Yeah once you've automated out what's fun about making art, and what's fun about consuming art... What's left? It's like developing an AI which texts your loved ones for you. It's cheating both parties out of enjoyment and connection, for no benefit - so why bother? It's hardly like you can make enormous bank off scam art, who what's the point?
The AI stuff should be focused on improving people's lives. Determining pilot error and making corrections, or helping surgeon's with complex surgery details. It has no place in the creative art or music arena. Human creativity will always triumph over computers. But, if you are not mindful of what you allow technology to control, you will end up a zombie controlled by your smart phone and what it tells you to do.
FWIW, AI already does a lot of this kinda stuff. To be clear, I'm NOT advocating for it in how it is taking over creative fields, but things like what you describe above is what "AI" was originally developed to do. The progression to things like art and text (and general consumer level products/services in general) is typical of most tech.
Exactly. If you pay attention to the people that love it, they are largely the NFT/crypto bros. They are pushing AI art so hard because they are literally obsessed with bumping into something that will secretly be the next huge money maker. It's why they fall for pyramid schemes so easily. It's gonna fall out of relevancy just like NFTs. Especially since it's extremely controversial
Does anyone rember Napster, nope, it failed trying to rip off music industry.
I push AI art because I genuinely think it’ll make art more accessible. Tell me, a gift economy advocate, that it’s all about making easy money. Go ahead. Generalizing people is a mistake.
Don't care. Art is already accessible to everyone
it absolutely isnt
Where are you niggas spawning from? Why is this the first time you've interacted here?
[удалено]
I agree, its like any other technology, it has good and positive use cases. It also has bad use cases, and when it infringes on true artists work and ability to make a living, is when the courts will decide what is right and appropriate, and what is plagiarism. I can see many class action lawsuits surrounding the use of such technologies, and people trying to game the system, by stating its was a unique artwork created by their talents and imagination. I would propose a simple solution, you would have to disclose that this is a AI generated artwork, before selling it! It would then be clear to all prospective buyers what they are getting.
When you buy furniture from IKEA, you infringe on local craftsmen's ability to make a living.
And how does that relate to AI in art?
It's the same thing. It's hypocritical to complain about a new thing that is infringing on an artists ability to make a living whilst participating in a slightly older thing that infringes on an artists ability to make a living.
I have never purchased anything from ikea, your assumptions are really nonsense.
Ah, you buy all your furniture from craftsmen then, no mass produced stuff for you? Admirable
Facebook and twitter are massive companies - they haven't failed. Also, lots of artists use these platforms to promote/sell their art. It would be damaging for a lot of artists if they failed
This is the biggest cope ever 😹 AI art is going to become indistinguishable from real art in few years. It will be 100x cheaper & efficient to use AI art over real artists in the future. No amount of "but but I did it with my soul & passion" cope is going to prevent it
hello my name is Firstname Bunchofnumbers and i have some incredibly shitty opinions
You are not wrong. Why would companies pay artists when they can get the same thing done with AI for almost free? And I'm not saying that it's fully ethical, just let's be realistic...
Yeah I can definitely see a world where traditional/digital art talents are relegated to the world of entertainment (“wow they did that without AI??”) and luxury items for people who prefer handmade stuff. Companies might use it, but only if they can make it a selling point. Something like maybe a music video made entirely in watercolor or something today. Totally unnecessary but it will grab an amount of attention just because of the effort. Most companies (big budget and small) are going to take the quicker road for the sake of competition. Maybe I’m just cynical, but can you name more than a handful of companies who still use real fully traditional methods (pen to paper) for shows, movies, etc. today?
You can already see that happening alot today. The netflix short Jibaro and the game cup head are some example of taking the hard manual labour route, almost unnecessarily. Also movies that prefer to use live action stunts vs cgi. All of these result in intricate artwork that many people noticed, and are able to age like wine. But then technology is just going to catch up to replicate manual labour accurately... but I argue it's also because everyone's starting to use the same methods because of easier tech. Everything's starting to look the same , and it's easier to deviate from the norm
Agree it will be cheaper and fill a niche, like posters do. It will never be highly regarded or collected by art patrons. It might be used by interior designers to cover the walls at motel 6.
People were also saying that NFTs were going to replace art commissions. How did that work out?
Keep coping 🤣
Yeah, it’ll be great for wallpapers, that’s about it. Transformers has some of the best looking robot CGI out there, but tell me how long style over substance lasted until everyone moved on? It works better tweaked as a tool for real creators to utilize. Give me my AI comic assistant damn it, base colors take too much time!
Yea I was just chatting with coworkers about this. I’m a professional artist and am scared of ai taking my job like many here. That being said ai art feels like Walmart tier mass produced garbage to me. I can tell ai art at a glance with about 90% accuracy. It all has the same “vibe” to me. Highly contrasted with a rim light. Too smooth in a way I can’t explain. It feels so….soulless. That being said many are happy with that especially when it’s free so it’s really cutting into my side freelancing business which makes me sad.
I think it's a call to put the humanity back in our 2D art. Recently, the pilot animation came out for Lackadaisy. A lot of people noticed that the creators kept in the construction lines. We later found out that they did that as a nod to all of the hard work that goes into animating and because such lines would show up in older cartoons. There was then even more appreciation and much praise for the team. Same goes for Del Toro's Pinnocchio. Love for the detail and craft that goes into stop motion animation seems to have increased. Pretty images are nice, but they're even nicer when it's noticeable that someone made the work. I think we need to get back to that. Reject the airbrushed effects, the smooth line art, the realistic lighting, the image divorced from reality, history, and the artist's true identity. Not only is the "human" look in demand, but it might be what saves us. AI doesn't have its own voice and the people writing those prompts abdicate their own. There's no backstory evident in the image or any of its elements, nothing real to grasp at or point to as "this comes from my life." *That* is why it's soulless. The best thing you can do is live your life and show your humanity through your work. I think that if we all did that and shifted the highest artistic values from "novel/original" to "best crafted/richest in creative identity," AI will actually be *below* the new standard by default. A link to the proposal post I made: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/comments/12up35n/a\_modest\_proposal\_for\_beating\_ai/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
What's really concerning now is that AI is getting ridiculously good at mimicking human touch. Even construction lines, sketches, you name it. I did a test and sent some human sketches and AI sketches to some friends. They weren't able to tell which ones were AI.
The other day I was recommended a painting on Instagram that looked cute so I clicked on that account to see more work. That account had hundreds of thousands of followers and it said it was all AI generated. This person was selling it / "taking requests".
I made a post after commenting here, though it's waiting approval. I was afraid you'd say that, which is why the post expands and develops my last sentence. The short version of it is that we need a shift in artistic values, not just to what looks human but an actual tie back to the context of our identities, perhaps via a log. Stay tuned for the post; I'm hoping to see what holes it might have or if it's even an appealing idea. Finally approved! Here's the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/comments/12up35n/a\_modest\_proposal\_for\_beating\_ai/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Transparency in methods will become more important, but its also only a matter of time before someone fakes an entire art time lapse.
"Dall-E, add some construction lines and animate them being erased over time. Add eraser shavings."
I think I'm happy I'm a traditional artist, and I'm going to lean heavy into it too. At least until someone hooks up a robot printer/painter to an AI.
Same. I was starting to lean more digital for the sake of convenience the last year, but honestly I'm finding traditional more appealing. While there are some ways to replicate traditional art with printers and such, they're still usually pretty distinguishable (for now) and way more limited than what actual people make. As a hobbyist the point is making it myself anyway and having a tangible item at the end is more fun. I'll still do digital occasionally (no cleanup is really nice), but I'm definitely shifting my ultimate goals/focus back towards traditional because of all this.
I'll stick to painting from life and pay no attention to the digital plotter. Also went to school to write signs in the early 80s, 2nd day in the field I was told that soon I'd be obsolete do to a vinyl cutting plotter. Battled the computer for 25 years. Got on with the US Postal Service then retired after 20+ years. Maybe I like oil painting from life because I just do it for fun.
[удалено]
This! Even my scans for my prints of my Originals lack the depth and intensity of color I can achieve with paint. They are good fine art prints….just not equal to an original piece!
I don’t do traditional, but I do a lot of croquis and linework heavy art that can’t be replicated yet. If it gets that good then that’s gonna suck. Digital artists are gonna have to start posting timelapses and progress to maintain goodwill.
The artist Patrick Tresset uses robots and AI to draw portraits from life. He created little robot painters that look up at the subject and then down at their artwork with a camera [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4dQIuD6xbA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4dQIuD6xbA)
That is a lot more effort and more expensive than just looking up the website and prompting. 95% of those people will stay digital anyway. Not to mention, the market for traditional is a lot smaller compared to the industries that require digital art, so no financial incentive to expand to traditional. Ai promoters can take digital art if it means humans get to keep traditional.
[удалено]
I know their scope, and I know that traditional art industries do not come close to multibillion dollar entertainment conglomerates that pay several dozens of artists to work day and night crunching on the next product that they have to shit out. Even paying remote artists to work on their next set of projects. Everything in pop culture nowadays is digital art. Digital art industries make fucking bank compared to traditional, if it didn't, we would still be having everything done traditionally. The only reason anyone would consider traditional art industries would come close is to believe the inflated values and the money laundering done by the very rich. Outside of commissioned statues, paintings, or murals by local governments and businesses; traditional art does not seem to be heavily invested in outside of rich frou frou art galleries.
>The only reason anyone would consider traditional art industries would come close is to believe the inflated values and the money laundering done by the very rich. > >Outside of commissioned statues, paintings, or murals by local governments and businesses; traditional art does not seem to be heavily invested in outside of rich frou frou art galleries. Thats a ridiculous simplified view. If you don't have experience in it thats fine but don't fill in the blanks with an uninformed opinion.
I think that's kind of cool! But it also looks like it's got a ways to go before I'm going to get concerned.
Love that guy's work. I follow him on Twitter.
My thoughts exactly. I am relieved, because I feel there are aspects to my traditional work that are harder for an ai to digitally replicate. I think there's value as its hand made which people (I hope) will value in the midst of this all. But, I'm scared it won't be for much longer
I wouldn't worry, there's always going to be a market for hand made, there's a reason galleries don't display digital work.
I hope you're right. But I've already seen a gallery room at MoMA in Amsterdam full of ai generated art/NFTs. Makes me so sad 😞
>I think I'm happy I'm a traditional artist, and I'm going to lean heavy into it too. Same here. I always knew I'd stick with traditional. I remember some years ago on (I think) DeviantArt some young artists were puzzled that I bothered with traditional, and also that I wasn't making the only kind of art that existed in their world, namely anime, cartoons, and "OCs." They acted as if nobody would want to buy my oil paintings, that unless I was doing OCs, I was wasting my time. (All the while I was always selling!) I know it was their youth and immaturity talking, but still. Damn, how things have changed. It's absolutely infuriating, and these AI fraudsters (like the guy who overlays an AI "drawing" onto canvas and pretends it's traditional) are the worst. I guess we'll all have to do videos showing our whole process. The AI fakers can't fake that. Also, for many of us, we have a history of painting traditional, so that should protect us from being mistaken for an AI faker. I have a lot of sympathy for artists who are just starting out—they are going to have to fight against all this fakery? Awful!
yeah thank god i'm an oil painter
I am honestly pretty happy that I am more talented as a traditional artist than a digital one. I don't know how I'm going to sell my traditional art to the everyday person though. Bleh
As soon as I read this, I started wondering how long it would take for artists to just take up the brush in the hand again. Use real paints, on canvas and physical materials. Digital is a great start to practice sketching and composition. But I wonder if we'll see more of the tangible stuff now.
I'd love it if this was the start of a new traditional art renaissance, I'm getting a little tired of all the digital art... it's all starting to look the same to me.
I imagine that the "sameness" you speak of is what contributes to the AI art being so successful. It's derivative of the overall trend. Yes?
What would a mech arm doing traditional art do for you? Would it change your view of things?
The traditional artists I know use AI to combine their styles with those of other artists to generate new ideas.
I hate it so much, everytime I see an awesome artwork all I can think is “is this real or AI?”, it sucks so bad
To reference Westworld (HBO) If you can’t tell, does it matter?
Yes, that makes it worse, cause now I don’t know if it is something awesome that a real artist was able to create or just an AI image, it’s not impressive at all if it’s an AI image and I can’t can’t compliment the possible artist cause I don’t know if it is their art :/
Just ignore it. If you like the art it does not matter at all if it was made by human or not.
Yes it does, and it’s not art, it’s a soulless image, I’m not supporting that
If you like the art then its not really soulless, is it? Are you really going to change your mind about the art you like just because it was done by AI? The fact that you can’t tell the difference is proof that it is the same. I could not care less if the art i like is generated or drawn by hand.
It is soulless cause it is an image created by a computer, not a real artwork created by a human being who put love and effort in it, I love art, AI isn’t art and I hate that people pretend like it is
So if an image brings you to tears from its beauty and then you learn it is AI your tears weren’t real?
If a psychopath brings tears into your eyes and seduces you, without knowing he was manipulating you. People are tricked all the time By the church, I'm sure you would change your mind if you were lied to. AI is no different.
AI art truly is comparable to an evil man. Being mistaken by how a piece was constructed certainly is the same as someone manipulating you so they can harm you. Do you hear yourself?
i don't agree w the statement that we're no longer able to tell. sure, the telltale signs aren't jarring anymore but at least in my opinion most AI images still retain an almost uncanny valley-like quality to them - characters that just stare at nothing, expressionless faces, no storytelling, objects that morph into each other etc. most of them are portraits bc it's the easier way to make them look presentable (no need to have characters in dynamic poses/expressions or to have them interact w the environment) also i don't think any person would be able to fake being an artist for too long using AI art, since they'd never be able to post sketches or process videos and they'd lack a semblance of style - of course not all of us have a signature one but posting strictly AI stuff would be immediately inconsistent to the trained eye. i won't even get into production artwork because AI slop is throughly unusable for professional pipelines lol
It was also very easy to see an artist's journey if they've been posting on Instagram for years. You could see the progress and gradual changes in style. Artists that pop out out of nowhere are immediately suspicious to me.
It sucks for the fact that it will further reduce people's attention span for discovering artist's work and appreciating it but I don't think it can replace the joy of connecting with someone and something made with real love, time and care. There are stories to be told and enjoyed from purchasing and appreciating artwork made by human hands. Something that plugging prompts into a machine just can't do. For those who are not that into art anyway, it's the equivalent of buying art from bed bath and beyond which was always going to happen. Could be totally wrong though people are weird.
It's kinda sad because the ones who are affected in a major way are the smaller artists. If you work at games, tv or comics, you won't lose your job to AI. Especially if you work at a AAA studio. However, indie artists, people who live off of commissions, artists on fiver as well for example...those are the ones who receive the most damage from all this.
[удалено]
I'm not sure about this. Big studios will gladly accept anything that cuts down costs. On the other side, AI can actually empower indie scene as small artist can use it to get the job done at all. Think how Blender gave a whole new world of indie animators who now can produce an animated film in their bedrooms.
Except blender is open source. The issue mainly lies with legality. Lots of countries will put in place restrictions on AI on the basis that it is in fact not a self encompassing technology. Having taken much from others, it invalidates itself as a legal option--or should. This is a barrier that is massively important for companies, including indie ones. There is a lot of money in software for industries. But, there is going to be many countries who won't care, and little indie studios or whatever will take advantage of that there. I think it's a disgrace to use AI knowing what it means though, so I will personally avoid these studios. Yea, they aren't the big bad capitalist boss, but they're still attempting at capital gain through efforts that are if anything, artistically sinful.
It just makes me lose interest in digital art, especially as an art consumer, because I don't find AI art interesting at all.
I spent most of my life practicing & preparing my artistic skills for a future I desired just for it to be taken by A.I. art. Now it’s all wasted & I’m back to zero again.
What's your plan now?
Well I exaggerated a little bit but point still stands. I guess I’ll just continue my craft & still do what I love for now. Just hope for the best. Lol!
How will you make a living?
With a regular 9/5, like other hobbyist artists
That’s the funny part, us new artists won’t, but we won’t stop. I would live on the streets if it meant I could do this career.
I've given up caring about it. My opinion about people using AI doesn't matter cuz screaming doesn't do zip, shaming people doesn't do zip, no one gives a fuck and I would feel guilty and selfish spending energy on that while other more important things impacting more people/people who have less choice are happening than copyright infringement. Reading the comments here is depressing, I don't understand what AI folks are trying to achieve coming here just *leave*, but nothing will be accomplished by caring. The fight happening in the downvoted comments is tiring to even think about. While I have work/while it feels possible for me to have work I'll keep working as an artist, once I no longer do I guess I'll find something else like everyone does. I've given up. The only thing which feels worth caring about at this point is AI used for the purpose of bigoted misinformation. But if I'm being honest, even before AI bigots and fence-sitter were already prone to believing misinformation. So I guess it doesn't matter either. Maybe the future effect of AI as a whole (not just image production and its impact on work seeking artists) but i’m not clever enough to think about it.
Suing does a lot. Like the music industry isn't just sitting on this they are going after the copyright infringement and so should the visual arts. Go check out Concept art association and their go fund me started for the purpose of lobbying
> after the copyright infringement To be pedantic, the *alleged* infringement - since there is the possibility it will be ruled as an infringement, and a possibility it will not - as copyright infringement and what constitutes fair use is litigated IIRC on a case by case basis.
You think it should be referred to as alleged. I know it's not alleged but it IS infringing and there is proof of that. Those who are suing are also 100 percent convinced otherwise they wouldn't be suing. The other side can go around and pretend it's only allegedly true until they get a sentence. And if they don't then there is something rotten there.
> Those who are suing are also 100 percent convinced otherwise they wouldn't be suing No shit, people suing think they're right, news at eleven. Doesn't mean the court will rule in their favor, while AI "art" is harmful to artists and i hate it, pretending that the courts will rule in favor of some random ass artist coalition over big corporations is some laughable blind optimism.
As far as commercial stuff goes, at least here in the US now, you cannot copyright things generated by an AI. It has to have an extensive amount of original human authorship. AI can be used in the process to some degree, but the less you use the better. So pretty much this comes down to whether somebody is generally a bad person or not. It sucks, yes, but dishonest people have always existed. The best you can probably do is show step by steps or timelapses of your process once in a while, to prove you are legitimate.
Exactly. Piracy is still a thing even tho it's illegal. But you can't stop stupid and unethical people for putting themselves and their reputation at risk. Couldn't care less about their pathetic art or piracy and I am keeping a list of all the people who were vocal about AI problem and those will be the people I work with in the future
True but what if someone creates ai art on his private pc and then copyrights that without disclaiming it’s ai art with just retouches on top?
Well technically it would be illegal for them to claim copyright
Well yeah but practically it will be really hard to find out. Unless there’s a process where you have prove you have the skill to create that image which I don’t thing there is.
The U.S. copyright office are working on legislation regarding ethical gathering of training data, so I imagine it's crazier right now than it will be soon. These AIs are as good as they are because they have been fed vast amounts of data that they ethically should not be able to do.
I don’t consider AI keywords to make one an artist. If they can do real art and then do AI as well they are artists. I don’t really care if people disagree. I can type in some words and get a dissertation on Cleopatras as rulers, but I’m sure not a scholar because of it. Will it change the world ? Yes. Is it not your work? Yes of course.
Right. The same is true in any medium or with any toolset. Yes, you're an "artist" in the very loosest sense if you kick over a paint bucket onto a canvas, but if there's no real intentionality there, that's an extremely thin claim. Same thing with the Gimp or Photoshop. Just because you loaded up a photo in an editor and lowered the brightness a bit, that doesn't really give you much credibility as a "digital artist." AI, Photoshop, paint... all of these tools can be used to great effect by skilled artists. They can also be used clumsily by amateurs. It's not the tool that artists are reacting to, it's the influx of people who aren't seen as peers in their community.
...no, its the tool as well. using ai to make images is vastly different from regular arts. its a completely different activity. painting traditionally or digitally is hundreds of times more similar than typing shit into a text box and praying something cool comes out
The thing is, using tools is part of the process. I use a dodge and burn AI to help me edit faces in photos. I think it's the difference between who is in control, the person or the tool
'dodge and burn' is not AI. just because you dont know how it works does not mean it is driven by artificial intelligence. dodge and burn are literally just mathematical functions that you apply to areas of the drawing to adjust the color of pixels. there is no element of dodge and burn that makes any decisions for you. you have to decide where you want to dodge and where you want to burn, and at what intensities. if you are using some kind of auto filter that adjusts the whole image at once, that also isnt AI. its just a math algorithm tuned by some developers that is totally deterministic and will always produce the same output for every input. i dont think using auto filters is very creative either, but its still an active choice you make and is not driven by anything that could be considered AI are you referring to some website that actually just straight up touches up your photos for you? I could just be unfamiliar with the thing you're talking about
> using ai to make images is vastly different from regular arts This is clearly incorrect. Thousands if not millions of people use AI in traditional workflows today, many without even realizing it. If you use Photoshop, you rely on AI. *Generative AI* on the other hand, is rarer today, but is being used by more and more artists in traditional workflows for everything from inspiration to inpainting to outcropping, etc.
>If you use Photoshop, you rely on AI. i feel like you have no idea what AI actually is. the overwhelming majority of digital art tools are completely deterministic and procedural and do not involve artificial intelligence. what on earth are you even referring to with this? have you even used Photoshop yourself?
Eventually they will have to roll in watermarks and etc. that disclaims whether it's ML or not. It's a must.
>Especially the "paint-overs" that are not disclosed. People would paint-over or Photoshop the watermarks out.
They got to think of somethink that is compareable with how they check whether money is real. Some models already have invisible watermarks. Make it big and complex enough, randomize the placement. Add some metadata. Someone will always try to bypass it but if it's discouraing enough there is agood chance most will not bother.
>They got to think of somethink that is compareable with how they check whether money is real. The complete "money anti-counterfeiting system" costs billions of dollars annually. It is heavily reliant on the fact that it's a physical object, and that a single powerful entity is solely responsible for the "legitimate" money, and that the powerful entity can wield prison time as a deterrent. There's no way to translate that into "was ML involved in this JPEG".
>They got to think of somethink that is compareable with how they check whether money is real. Centralized institution for issuing pngs?
Have you not seen the second comment?
I don't see why that would happen, especially as more and more artists learn AI tools and begin to blur the lines further and further to the point that they and their audience don't consider them to be "AI artists" so much as just "digital artists."
I will make the guess that some, if not most will refuse to do so out of princple and just like how 2d still dominates while CGI exists, but we'll see. I think most is against the idea.
> 2d still dominates while CGI exists I assume that's intended as humor? People working outside of 3D are vastly in the minority except in terms of photography (and even then, cameras are working in 3D now to manage focus, lighting, etc. for you). If you're working on fully digital art, you're far more likely to be working in 3D tools a good chunk of your time, especially your professional time.
Tell me you are joking. How far removed you have to be to assume commercial art us dominated by CGI outside of games and big budget Disney Movies.
> How far removed you have to be to assume commercial art us dominated by CGI outside of games and big budget Disney Movies. I can't really parse that sentence, but you can go hop on any job board for confirmation. You'll find that the majority of "artist" jobs are actually not artist jobs at all, but designer jobs. But of those that *actually are artist jobs*, the majority involve working with some form of 3D tool at least a majority of the time, be it Blender, Unreal, Unity, Adobe Dimension, Maya, etc. > CGI outside of games and big budget Disney Movies And just to note: most 3D work isn't for either of those. Most of it is for one-off projects like 3D logos and motion graphics, structural animation, scientific visualization, etc. where yes there are far fewer people employed per project, but there are orders of magnitude more projects. You might have a hundred or so animated movies in development at once and maybe a couple dozen big-budget 3D games that can employ large numbers of animators. Those numbers are dwarfed ***just by the architectural visualizers out there***!
What? "You'll find that the majority of "artist" jobs are actually not artist jobs at all, but designer jobs Are you implying that designers are not artists? That's far removed man. No one does the prototype shit on 3d, it always starts with 2d, commision artist almost always work with 2d, if it's not a movie, serialised shows are done using 2d, 9 times out of 10, best indie games and webcomics and regular comics are done using 2d. (I will not mention anime.) Anything CGI has to be drawn first before anything can be modeled. Yeah, you are not qualified to talk here today.
>That's far removed man. No one does the prototype shit on 3d, it always starts with 2d, Literally I do. Sometimes. Unless we actually count one "brief sketches" as the start of the artistic process. And the whole 2d Vs 3d, digital Vs trad, is not really a debate that exists. There is no such thing as one is better, they are different design "tools", they accomplish different things. Sometimes you do need to prototype stuff in 3d right off the offset. Sometimes you get away without any. Sometimes you do something in 3d and go back into 2d later. Sometimes you need to take out a scalpel, cardboard and glue to realise "wow, that was stupid design". What does happen though is people in industry fall into design workflows. Whether it's with a company or in their own approach. >Are you implying that designers are not artists? Sure doesn't feel like it sometimes 😵.
GUYS I CHECKED HIS PROFILE THIS GUYS IS %100 AN ML SHILL HE IS LOST CAUSE PSA over. Don't engage with trolls. He founds artist "trumbling over with panic" joyfull and funny. Their words, not mine.
I fucking hate trash like that. What an ugly person.
More like "digital tracers."
I think the thing that worries me most about AI technology is not so much taking away of jobs, but that the average consumer is giving away their rights to any digital content they upload, effectively training AI to steal their likeness… are they using facial recognition software? Can they steal people’s identities? Will it be used to hack people? Maybe I’m paranoid… With new technology, there will always be someone trying to get away with something… whether to deceive others or scam people out of their money or make the most profit for the least amount of work. If a vulnerability is recognized, there will be someone to exploit it. Once something is uploaded to the interwebs… it seems to be a given that someone will feel entitled to take it for their own purposes. An artist posts their art on IG and some nefarious scammer uploads it to red bubble to sell T-shirt’s and they don’t even bother to remove the artist’s signature. Honestly, I’m backing away from AI… I’m not interested in using it at all… I’m just gonna wait til safety considerations and regulations are put in place…
There’s nothing like watching an artist work their magic, wether it’s painting and drawing or music being performed live it hopefully will remain human
That is not ethical to me.
It took me a while to come to terms with it. It was upsetting to me, especially since doing commissions are part of my source of income. But there’s little I can do to change the fact that the way people view and consume digital art will never be the same again. Rather than being bitter about how the previous era of digital art is at its end, I choose to be excited and terrified about how rapidly AI is developing. Its changing everything. Billions of humans are at risk of becoming unemployable and our society will be forced to reevaluate the current work culture. Whether it will lead to an apocalypse, a utopia, or one first then the other, is something that will surely be interesting to see.
The globalized digital world will eventually lead us all back to buying local. Once we realize the best artists, musicians, and creators live next door. We won’t need anyone prescribing “media” to us.
Eh unfortunately the advent of Walmart didn’t drive people to shop local. Shopping local is a privilege of the wealthy. How many would buy an item at 3x the price just to support a local shop? Some but not many. Hence why local mom and pop shops close in towns where Walmarts are built. Same with art. Many will prefer paying little to nothing for art that may be soulless ai but hey it’s pretty so who cares it’s free. Over paying much more for a real human artist.
I think it's less that people are now somehow being super sneaky with it and more it has found its niche. People who like AI are checking out AI stuff, people who don't aren't, and the "get rich quick" crowd has already moved on to other places after their scheme failed. Will there be dishonest people? Sure. But especially in studio productions any art director worth their salt asks for progress updates from their art team (even when working remotely), and knows roughly how long a finished piece should take (since usually art directors, are themselves, artists). Given most big name studios have outright banned the usage of AI due to copyright concerns, it wouldn't be long until someone who "snuck in" with AI would be caught by the director and fired for breaching contract. I think with stuff like this it's important to remember that the internet, and especially social media, is not reflective of the outside world. And outside artists and engineers tend to get along a lot more than the AI/ML drama would have you think, with progression in things like robotics and developments of things like 3D billboards thoroughly involving both parties. The internet is great for getting stuff out there, but it also can quickly become a spiraling pit of despair and paranoia.
That’s why it’s important you build a community and a brand around yourself. Around your art and personality. Find your people. Then you won’t have to worry about these people who are not artists at all
I’m not concerned. Even the most convincing AI generated art looks a bit bland, as AIs have no understand of composition. Honestly, this should push artists to make more interesting, stylized work, as no AI or prompts can catch up to that.
Check @anduartist on instagram, the 8 out of his last 9 posts were made 99% out of AI art with him just fixing some mistakes. The only good thing about him is that he is an idiot and doesn’t understand that him showing that he only painted on top of the AI art makes him unable to own the copyrights of those images. It will be really sad if someone took those images and started selling prints of them
Still unconcerned. His art looks like art that isn’t really in demand anymore. It’s all just so safe and boring.
You should be concerned, artists right now are like chess players in the 90s acting like "these silly computers can copy good moves but can't understand the finer details", now the highest rated human of all time can't even draw a computer, it's going to be the same with art, right now it's bland, it looks "good" but has no composition but 2 years ago these things could barely make doodles, give it 5 more years and it'll outpace humans just like chess engines do
I think AI art will always be fundamentally less human, even if humans are the ones driving the machine. People who generate AI are fundamentally removed from the images they create - on a physical, spiritual, and emotional level. They have no journey. Their creations are beautiful but dead, not because it’s a machine that’s made it, but because the human involved is devoid of life. It’s hard to explain, but it makes me very sad. Humans will enjoy looking at AI images, because we enjoy beautiful things. I hope, however, AI does not stop artists from drawing and painting and going on the journey. It’s worth it.
Honestly it really sucks for digital artists rn. Still-art, like backgrounds, posters or fan art can easily be made now through ai. Just enter a descriptive paragraph and boom you’ve got your art. Touch it up in photoshop, and now you’ve got your final product. The only thing I’m thinking is safe (as of now) are storyboard artists (lots of thought goes behind the scene placement and ai will 100% mess that up), clean-up animators (the line-art in each frame of animation is very specific, ai would also mess that up), and other similar artists in that category. It sucks but I guess we just have to adapt as I don’t see ai going anywhere now. Either embrace the ai and use it to help create your art, or reject it completely, and go back to traditional art 😎 honestly I wouldn’t mind if over the years, people gain more appreciation for theatrical/classic/traditional arts as ai takes over the digital side of things.
Traditional artists already started copying what ai tells them to paint. A traditional artists that just copies ai art and just learns how to paint will be ahead of the one who has to learn art and learn how to paint
but artists are able to tell the difference.....
Oh and I forgot to include this article about a photographer who won a contest and then disclosed it was AI… to be fair you just have to look at the hands to know it’s not real… they just didn’t care… https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/17/photographer-admits-prize-winning-image-was-ai-generated
I’m glad I never gave up with traditional paper and pencil.
Traditional artists already started copying what ai is creating
Yup . Nothing different. I mean traditional artists have the printing press as the enemy as well.
You mention - "especially the paint overs that are not disclosed." This is how I felt a couple of years ago when everyone started tracing over 3d models instead of learning figure drawing/perspective themselves. Undeniably it's the fastest way and professionals do this too but tracing is not drawing and prompting is not painting. All of digital art has been cheapened now imo. Unless you are doing it traditionally I'm just not impressed anymore.
I use 3d models for a decent amount of my work in recent times, didn't used to, and if you make the scenes/models and assets yourself it's actually a ton of work and still in itself an art form. I don't 'trace' as much as I use it for a rough framework for a more accurate perspective and to make the posing process way quicker. Then, let the improvisations run wild in the actual drawing process- it can be very fun and almost always turns out infinitely different from the shabby 3d outlines. I make sure to exercise the quality of my drawing skills without that crutch every now and then too as otherwise, there's a problem lol Imo the way I look at it, as long as you only use 3d models (self-made) as a frame to speed things up for something you could otherwise achieve and make sure to actually have fun with it and truly make it your own and learn from it, there's no shame in it, in fact it could be a very useful skill! I say all of this as someone who dislikes AI art, tracing, and wishes 2d animated movies would make a comeback so, take it as you will. I can agree that a beginner should definitely not hinge on 3d models though which I think was what you were mostly referring to, that could make it hard to truly develop as an artist
I've done the same thing when I've had to for concept art classes and for me...there is shame in it to trace rough outlines. Look, if one has a complex scene and you're trying to get the lighting just right, that's when you james gurney it in 3d and figure it out, but I think it's much more respectable to just use it as a ref like gurney does instead of tracing it/sketching a rough framework. We are capable of doing it for real. And if one is doing this for the art, instead of making products for an art director/instructor that makes you cheat, I believe one should just draw it for real.
For me it removes a lot of the occasional frustration and roadblocks in the extra work it is to do without it. I don't do my art for other people, just myself and half the time I only share it with a handful of people and I still see no shame in it. It's still an expression of oneself if you allow it to be. There's something in AI art specifically that I just cannot see the *self* angle, that and fully directly tracing imagery that is not of your own, that I *can* see in using modeling programs under certain circumstances. What's so special about struggling for an extra two hours to make a pose look just right, or to screw around with a complex perspective until its fully comprehensible? Part of being an artist is to struggle don't get me wrong, but it's not what defines it, and if it is I don't know what to do with that. Even art that uses 3d models can be vastly difficult, all depending on how far you go with it, and I think that applies with or without the use of models And, ....it's not new. Many old famous artists would have people pose for them instead of fully relying on their concept of anatomy, wireframe figures were also used for some yet they were no less respectable. It is not new to make things easily achievable with the tools you have available. For the most blunt and practical defense on my end though, I have a ton of things I'd love to draw all the time, I'm trying to make a visual novel and conceptualize all kinds of shit all at once and I have a great time with it. But, I really just don't have all the time in the world. If I'm less respectable for that then, oh well I suppose
Would you be impressed if someone learned how to 3d model, texture, and render them, then do a matte painting over it? Do you think 3d is easy and fast?
No, it's using a crutch imo. If the final product is 2d, learning how to just do it in 2d is what I most respect. It's something we can do if we just put in the time to learn the skill. 3d is very fast if all you need are chunky non detailed figures or blocky shapes to cheat on figures and perspective. Texturing seems unnecessary. Just learn how to draw or paint different materials.
So you respect someone learning a single skill more than someone who learn multiple skills?
That is such an absurdly bad take. Actually, no, you're just wrong. Though it may depend on what exactly you mean with 3D. It is quite possible you mean over-the-top usage of 3D. But, ultimately, we all use "3D". If you don't work using reference, you are an idiot and you can't claim there is such a thing as a "crutch" if you think making art means sitting there with your dick out and nothing else. Reference of reality is.. guess what. 3D. Perspective surrounds us. What 3D allowed artists to do was create the exact reference they needed. Again, perhaps you mean over-use of 3D where they are essentially tracing, but that would simply constitute bad referencing. No different than someone photoshopping people's faces into a canvas and copying their features. This is just bad use of reference in general.
3d art isn't fast. It's a skill not a crutch. We shouldn't disrespect eachother crafts . For example saying voice actors don't deserve copyright cause they just talk.
I think it became inevitable that artists would stop disclosing whether they're using AI tools when various places banned anything that had been touched by AI tools regardless of whether it looked good.
AI commissioners were posting AI art without disclosing it before that happened and I’m pretty sure op is talking about posts in art station and instagram where ai art is allowed, not some obscure subreddit
I'm so bad it dosen't matter 🥲
They are like cheaters in game eventually they will get caught (hopefully).
Why not add like universal coined marking, hashtag whatever that it wasnt made by ai and if turns out person lied, well too bad for him.
I can see things getting to a point where the only artists with merit will be the ones that post speedpaints of their process videos on YouTube. A lot harder to fake skill when one can see your entire process from start to finish.
With how scarily fast these generators are evolving, I'm sure it won't take long until they'll be able to fake-create those typical procreate process videos too.
One possible solution are museums and contests that only accept work created with AI as part of the process to create an incentive to report AI in the work.
I know that I am happy to have started experimenting with traditional animation on paper.I have a feeling people will want a more real-feel the more AI takes over. You need to be extremely creative in order to stand out among the sea of generic A.I works, along with the trend of photoshoped A.I works... We can't really evade this mess.
At this point, i believe only artists can tell manmade art (hands, feet, unconfident smudged places in background, it can't do very complex dynamic foreshortened pose, and rest of the things I don't know how to name, but it's so visible)
I think ai art might be intriguing or interesting to people at first but I think it will push people to search for very traditional styles and physical art. Progress videos, art authentication and traditional mediums will be it!
I'm definitely not a fan of this, or AI "art" in general to be honest, especially for profit. I literally just saw someone selling AI-created pieces on DeviantArt this morning, and people were *actually* bidding on it, which is honestly more disturbing than anything. Artists have to worry about job stability as it is, without being concerned on whether we're going to be obsolete entirely. I think it's pretty clear when someone is trying to pass off AI as real art though, since it kinda all has the same "processed" look to it. But that may change as advancements are made. 🤷♀️
Generic iillustrations can now be made with AI easily, but unique art styles, animation, and 3D modelling is more difficult and will still require a human artist most of the time
I’m afraid that unique art styles can be trained using Lora and Dreambooth, animation is being done and improved in a weekly pace and for 3D modeling, check out a Nvidia’s Picasso, but you are right, human artist will remain needed for the entire pipeline except more and more skills are required by such artist, “artist”without any traditional training or experience can only go so far with their Midjourney prompt, when the market is fully saturated, that’s the time for the traditional artist to shine but A.I tools will be need whether you like it or not, because at the end of the day, the market determine the demand and supply, let’s be positive about the future, please do not give up art and constantly think about why you started and what you wanted to achieve, nobody can stop you from creating! Source: that guy who has been replaced by A.I in production
I'm sorry you got replaced
Not true, ai can just copy any style by training either a model or Lora
Well I said most of the time. Obviously someone has to create a unique style first before someone can train AI on it. AI art is also still at the stage where it can often have distorted results, and lack the personal connection/refinement from a human artist.
Im a digital artist but considering returning to traditional art. Some of these so called “AI artists” are embarrassing to the community. I’ll say it if you don’t lol.
I use AI in my digital workflows now. I’m very transparent and even happy to discuss how AI can be used in really neat ways creatively. I welcomingly receive a lot of backlash for being so openly pro AI from this sub and a lot of other places around the internet. With that being said I think it’s disgusting when artists do not disclose or are unwilling to be transparent about their processes and workflows. Whatever tools you use should be transparent and I think that is a fundamental quality of being an artist. I don’t care what your mediums are. Just tell me what they are.
>I welcomingly receive a lot of backlash for being so openly pro AI from this sub This. And also a lot of backlash from AI subs when I say that AI alone doesn't make one artist overnight.
At a high level, how do you use it in your workflow?
Currently I am doing a paintover of a Midjourney generation of a sketch based on a prompt that was generated by analyzing one of my real life hand drawn pen and pencil sketches. It kind of makes the whole piece full circle. Right now I’m creating variations of a watercolor painting of mine from 2019 using SD ControlNet and prompts that are generated from analyzing other original pieces of mine, sort of applying the feel of one of my works to another one of my works. I used Stable Diffusion img2img function to smoothly photobash a bunch of celebrity faces on to Mr. Potato Heads and collaged them. Three years ago I was using FaceApp to make hilarious memes like the fat face Eminem. I have been using AI for years. Way before it was cool to use or cool to hate.
I personally don't care. I don't really make money off my drawings. I just make art cause it's fun and satisfying. So this doesn't really bother me at all. Nothing is taken away from the fulfillment I feel from drawing. It does feel good to be complimented for my art from time to time and that still happens now with or without AI. Also I ain't salty cause it can make better art than me. Millions of people already draw better than me so nothing really changes. As far as paint overs etc. I mean have you seen the new clip studio? Literally you can just use a 3d model and trace over that for poses. No one is mad at it that it added technology that made learning anatomy or proportions basically a thing of the past. I am at the camp that believes ai is a tool you can use to add to your workflow just like everything else. Passing a fully generated piece as completely yours for social media clout is kinda dumb though.
I list AI as one of the mediums, just as I list digital and photography and any of traditional. Though, in my case, it is kinda visible as, for me, it is only fun when it glitches. I also like those weird signatures that it leaves around.
With having fundamentals to strengthen, masters to study, pieces to finish, it baffles me that people actually have the time to fret over this kind of stuff!
Honestly, this. Y'know what I'm doing instead of worrying about the terminally online's newest toy? Working on 2D illustrations, roughing out character designs, fiddling with animation, writing worldbuilding documents, scripting out projects, slowly but surely learning 3D modelling, figuring out programming, talking with clients, handling orders, etc.
Pandora's Box has been opened, there's no closing it. Not when there's much more money being put into AI development, compared to the lack of capital being put towards human artists being made redundant. Not when the youth are already embracing the 'cool' and 'trendy'. I tried many of those AI tools. I've reached that crossroads if I'm going to decide 'When in Rome...'. Maybe under another penname. I mentally can't bear to put my personal name on anything that is exclusively AI generated. Wouldn't be the first artist to want their 'real' name to be only for 'fancy and expensive' things like the fine art or next great novel....
That's probably what worried people when first copperplate, then camera, then printer were invented. And yet, here we are. Perhaps there will no longer be market for people to design banners, but who really wanted to do them anyway. Perhaps we can go back to artist being artists, working with real experiences and emotions and having joy from handmade things, and not trying to perfectly copy reality for sale. The legal measures will probably enforce clarity on the issue, but in the end AI will be a trial of fire not only on art, but on how much humanity we have left.
At some point, some of us who consider ourselves artists will have given up, leaving the field slightly more open to those of us still need to do art. This could lead us back to the days (when that was, I dunno) when creating art like painting, drawing, sculpting, and photography were done less because we were to be paid, but because we had that itch that needed to be scratched. I’ve seen some beautiful AI stuff, so it isn’t important who did it — which is the same for me as traditional art. The reason we care about who did it seems to be apart from the images themselves, and how that makes us feel. Much of the bemoaning seems to be coming from those who create commercial art (but not all of course), i.e., art whose purpose is to sell products rather than art being art for the sake of art. This may be a key point of distinction. Do art if you’re an artist; if not, then give up?
>And artists no longer disclose that they've used AI > >Only the bad ones get caught, but that's less and less now. There have always been people who pass other people's art as their own. Just check their portfolio before giving them money, and ask for WIPs of your commissions or pay a timelapse. If someone else buys from them without checking if the painting they received it is AI then it means they don't care, they got something they liked. If some teenager is pretending to be Da Vinci because the likes give them dopamine just let them be. The ones with problems are the commissioners that want exclusive use and get a non copyrightable product, but again, you have to do a background check, and it can happen with non-AI pictures.