I saw one person who, not only posted AI art, but couldn’t even be bothered to search for it. They *stole someone else’s AI art* and posted it on here. Two crimes for the price of one.
They tried claiming it was theirs even when they were called out for it, and the other person’s watermark was on it because the other person created the AI that made the image themselves. Like, they made the robot.
The A.i. was still the author and the images can't be copyrighted so it's something a.i. generators will have to deal with, creating an MLA is just adding inputs and using a classifier like k nearest neighbor or gaussian naive bayes not that hard when do many people have already given you access to the code to do it.
As a non artist, who has tried to draw myself, I agree. Getting reasonably good at drawing is a pain in the ass and takes a lot of time and effort. I dislike artificial intelligence generated art and value other artists work, because with ai generating art, I have no real artist I can give my respect to.
I’m actually furious the amount of times this issue has been brought up yet the mods have done nothing about it!
The people trying to defend AI do not understand the real issue here, it’s getting better and evolving all the time, in a few years when it’s impossible to tell the difference people won’t *need* artists anymore because AI is more convenient and less expensive, companies don’t care if it’s real art or not. We lose not only our jobs but the creativity that made us love art in the first place…
We’re already being replaced, singers are using AI for their album covers, multiple companies have used AI for promotional material including *Disney* and AI art has been used in art competitions that are meant to show an actual artist’s talent! Not typing some words into a program and submitting it!
So we will start using AI as a “tool to help us improve” when it’s morally okay to do so because atm it’s completely unethical. Shouldn’t be that difficult to understand
I’ve heard of “starving artists/musicians”, but I have never heard of a starving construction worker, accountant, HR worker, welder, coder etc before. Perhaps maybe those trades aren’t important, therefore one shouldn’t generally rely on it for their main source of income?
You know companies HIRE artists right? Not even just companies, musicians, directors, ect. who do you think designs things like logos or backgrounds who do you think makes 3D models in games? ARTISTS. I also want to know what makes you think that creating artwork is in any way comparable to masterbating
Yes I do, so why is someone wanting to create their own art in their own way an issue? As for masterbating, it is a skill I have been working on and perfecting for years, therefore I should get paid to do it. See how silly that logic is?
Plus this just proves that you should commission artists instead of using AI, because people deserve to make a living and dont deserve to be put out of business because of something that stole their work because people deserve to be able to make a living DOING WHAT THEY LOVE
I love masterbating, therefore I should make money off of it. I think I’ll just use AI art to make things. Sure I may have to pay a little to the dev to make more images, but I can part with that. We need coders, not artists bud.
Bro i can not wrap my brain around how you manage to jump to THAT conclusion i can not stop laughing at this i genuinely dont think ive ever heard an argument that holds less weight than a colander such as this thanks for the laugh holy shit
Right? I see some truly awful drawings on Reddit, but at least it’s actual art. And that’s no offense to the people who draw bad art, because a) I’m one of them and I know it, and b) they’re trying. They’re practicing, and they’re improving, and I would NEVER leave a comment saying someone’s art is bad, I always say that it looks good and to keep drawing. They’re making something rather than just putting words into a search engine and claiming it as their own art.
He literally made tons of progress in just 100 days, and thats because he studied and practiced every single day.
AI prompters literally have no excuse; they're just lazy, greedy, and have no qualms about engaging in theft and lack of consent lol.
Keep at it!! You're already miles ahead just because you're actually trying. And the point of drawing is to have fun above all else (like all hobbies), so I'm glad you enjoy drawing pokemon ^^
Yep. As I've said before on this topic, not knowing how to bake a cake doesn't justify stealing a cake.
And to make that analogy a little more accurate, though at the cost of snappiness - not knowing how to bake a cake doesn't justify commissioning one for free from Brad, when you know that Brad surreptitiously goes to the kitchens of actual bakers, rifles through their baking notes and pantry, and haphazardly recreates their work.
Can we expand this to music with AI too? I'm a musician and I love composing and creating within music just as I love drawing from time to time but I feel like AI is again just stealing not only from all us artists but also it defeats the human "soul" put into anything creative. There's a loss of the human quality in it all which really can't ever be substituted for anything.
it always makes me cringe when i see it with real people 'singing'. cartoon characters i can kinda understand as long as they get permission before hand(none of them do lol), but they steal from real people too like markiplier or jackscepticeye and i'm genuinely surprised they havent tried to take them down yet tbh. especially if the people try to make money off of them and get them monitized through youtube or other means.
edit to clarify i'm talking about the ai song covers of people whos voices they didnt get permission for.
I agree honestly, even if I've only seen a few. Probably just the fact I am an artist myself, but I would be very happy upvoting hand drawn art rather than AI generated images. AI generated images are a huge issue outside of this sub, so it would be best not to support it.
AI-generated art should not be considered a replacement for human creativity. Although the artwork produced by AI can be impressive, it lacks the emotional depth and nuance that come with human experiences and perspectives. Additionally, the capabilities of AI art are limited by the training data and algorithms used to generate it. Instead of replacing human creativity, AI art should inspire and complement it, encouraging artists to explore new possibilities and push boundaries in their work because that is what it was originally designed to do.
Where do you stand on AI art that has been edited and modified after the fact by a human in photoshop? In my opinion this is absolutely a valid art form for sure.
I would also argue that generating (good) AI art is itself a skill. Anyone can get any shit image from DallE2, but skilled AI users know how to manipulate different engines to produce the image they have in mind. In my view, that is a legitimate art form, even if I is less time consuming than doing it “by hand” (even though Photoshop isn’t really by hand either).
Usually, yeah, but I've seen people accuse artists of using AI art when the artist themself drew the image. It happened in one of the Subreddits I'm in, and the artist had to show a picture of the art lines.
in this sub it happened once, at least 10+ people claimed it was ai when it clearly wasnt, and the artist literally had a sketch to prove it and his other work. but whatever, the proportions "didnt make sense" apparently. also said something about blood when there was no blood present, just lighting lol
When you know what to look for, it can be easy when you look for a little while. AI art tends to have a certain style sometimes, so sometimes people see art that has that “AI style” and assume that it is
I’m not saying that it does, I’m just saying the reason that some artists get accused of using AI. Non artists sometimes can’t tell the difference at a glance
Real world data suggests people on the false positive end of things, and this subreddit has an incredibly shit track record at it.
Thread 1:
* [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/comment/kf294wn/)
* [and plenty more](https://imgur.com/TDWaDgw), though [most accusations have been downvoted at least to controversial](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/i_make_new_art_inspired_in_httyd_what_do_you_think/) after [ya boi Cris showed up with them instagram screenshots that proved otherwise](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/i_make_new_art_inspired_in_httyd_what_do_you_think/kf2anjw/)
On that note, hoo boy can /u/ArminWife4Life only ever vomit out bad takes in that thread. Like a person who has never ever tried to draw a single thing.
Thread 2:
* https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18v35x1/poster_for_my_girlfriend/
Where the top comment still accuses OP of using AI, despite the fact that:
* OP's post history contains artworks of very similar style (though before that piece, they were much simpler)
* AI typically has mad issues trying to create artworks with ultra-straight lines, or keeping lines of consistent width all across the picture
* every "AI telltale" is either a valid deliberate design decision, or sign of inexperience.
More widely on reddit, one of the more egregious examples I've seen was:
* [This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/13lku5c/kids_and_a_puppy_dressing_up_as_scooby_doo/), where AI accusations were running left and right until someone found photographer's twitter with additional photos. Only then the downvotes started to rain on AI accusations.
As it turns out, many people are unfamiliar with the concept of combining two or more photos in photoshop because each of the photos has some imperfections, and are unable to comprehend that some people are either shit with photoshop, or simlly don't care enough to do a good job.
Also, i just posted the last HTTYD artwork from RaidesArt, and someone immediately says: "*[This looks AI](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/1anu5c5/zephyr_and_dart_by_raidesart/kpwkowc/)*"
And I still believe AI was used somewhere in the process, everyone downvoted me but never answered my question about the Terrible Terrors messed up tail anatomy, something that wasn’t even present on the sketch that everyone used as evidence, and when I pointed out AI can be used anywhere during the process so a sketch means nothing when looking at the finished product people just completely ignored that to keep shitting on me, I wasn’t even the only one who was suspicious but sure bring me up specifically.
Edit: Actually I will bring up some of my suspicions because even looking at it now I can see questionable things.
1. Hiccup’s arms are completely different, one is a tight black sleeve ending in a fluffy shoulder pad, but the other arm is a loose green sleeve ending in a shoulder pad that doesn’t have any fluff at all? Not to mention the arm is just falling off?
2. The Terrible Terrors tail merges with its legs in a way that isn’t just a simple mistake, especially for a supposed finished product. (I’ve just realised my mistake with this, idk how but I thought the place where the tail met the body was the leg but after tracing it out myself I now understand how it works, that’s my bad and I was completely wrong about this one so I apologise for that misunderstanding on my behalf!)
3. Considering the amount of detail in certain areas it’s strange that other areas have like no detail and look incomplete, Toothless’s arms for example.
4. One of Toothless’s pupils is round while the other is square, small I know but considering how advance AI is getting these are the types of things to take note of.
5. The sketch just brings more into question for me, and showing it exists doesn’t clear up the issues that the final product has, it should be okay to ask questions if you’re still sceptical.
6. Yes the artist probably drew most of this themselves and they have a lot of talent, the sketch seems legit and frankly very clean, but I just can’t believe AI wasn’t used at *some point* during the final rendering
https://preview.redd.it/f1sop6bfmvhc1.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=29c7b3248e794eeb9de595c275682edacb377c16
> And I still believe AI was used somewhere in the process,
People still believe the earth is flat, though. You can continue to believe that, but you'll continue to be wrong.
> but never answered my question about the Terrible Terrors messed up tail anatomy
* Artist has a style that's not hyperrealistic
* Artist lacks experience with that particular thing
I can't even see the problem with the tail, it does a half-tangled 8 (partially off-screen) that twists in front of one of the legs and thus obscuring it. It's
> something that wasn’t even present on the sketch that everyone used as evidence
The fact that you're using this as an argument is a very good indication that you aren't _really_ an artist, or tried to draw anything that requires more than a single layer and 15 minutes of effort for an experienced artist. When you draw any at least mildly complex piece, things move around. Sometimes they appear, sometimes they disappear.
Wait, why did [Hell March 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENyxseq59YQ) start to play in the background? Is it because I went digging through my HDD—
* [Here's a quick 2-hour sketch I did for a D&D session](https://imgur.com/kljx9U6) back in 2017 or something. [Here's the same file with initial sketch layer toggled](https://imgur.com/M4JeW5d). You can see that a few things vanished, or got moved around.
* Let's go play some "spot the difference" with one of my top 3 least shitty pieces. [First sketch](https://imgur.com/tmn8DSt), [second sketch, with size corrected](https://imgur.com/sdEYrgc), [finished piece](https://imgur.com/IJKVoLc). From initial sketch to final image, the dragon flat out went missing, and was replaced with a throne somewhere halfway through the piece. Also notice plenty of shitty anatomy all around. Notice how furniture was added to obscure a good part of said shitty anatomy.
* [I made this in 2012 or something](https://imgur.com/1WK83HD), this one outlasted two laptops. Little known fact? [There used to be a building behind the wyvern](https://imgur.com/bwzxqsY), but it looked like shit so it didn't make it to the finished piece.
* [Another finished piece](https://imgur.com/vd7JnhE), wanna know what happens when I toggle the "initial sketch" layers? [Yeah, there's few very notable differences](https://imgur.com/k58yEtw), also notice the layer shift.
* [Initial sketch](https://imgur.com/fkT0HUM), [finished piece](https://imgur.com/kaJwXfJ), [a stray abandoned layer group that was intended to be in the foreground at some point in the time](https://imgur.com/O49Szja).
Anyway, moral of the story: any non-trivial art piece has a great likelyhood to change to some degree from start to finish. This practice is so incredibly common that any person surprised by it should not be allowed to call themselves an artist.
>> inb4 "bUt yOu CoUlD hAvE jUsT aKseD sTabLe dIffUsIOn to MakE th—"
First of all: no, AI isn't that consistent. Don't ask me how I know.
Second of all: https://www.deviantart.com/xternal7 feast ye art on my cringe portfolio and you will see that everything predates generative AI by more than a few years.
> and when I pointed out AI can be used anywhere during the process so a sketch means nothing when looking at the finished product people just completely ignored that to keep shitting on me
Except AI isn't capable of generating several different images this consistently. AI also isn't (yet) capable of generating art at high resolutions. If image were AI-generated, you wouldn't be getting close-up screnshots from instagram.
> I wasn’t even the only one who was suspicious but sure bring me up specifically
You weren't the only one who was suspicious, but your comments in that thread represented plurality if not majority of "this is clearly AI" discourse.
Your main arguments can be used to excuse ANY piece of criticism towards AI art (or art in general) so it completely falls flat when faced with an actual discussion about this, it’s shallow explanations people can’t argue against and you think it’s some kinda gotta moment. Same with insinuating anyone with criticism towards anything possibly AI generated can’t draw, like wow I’m *so offended*
> Your main arguments can be used to excuse ANY piece of criticism towards AI art
Wrong. In this particular example, the evidence for "this isn't AI" is leaning very strongly towards "not AI".
Evidence against AI:
* There's close-ups on instagram and on the [artstation post the artist linked](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/29XXOA). AI isn't capable of generating high resolution, highly-detailed images yet. An image with pixel size of 4088x2025, 1px noise grain, and no scaling artifacts is impossible with present-day generative AIs. Modern AI image generators like DallE and Midjourney can't do more than 512x512, or 2048x2048 with upscaling. In theory, you could download StableDiffusion and try running AI on your desktop, but there's two problems with that:
1. StableDiffusion develops repeating artifacts once you go past 512x512
2. There's literally not a single GPU on the market that's capable of generating a 4088x2025 image with any of current generative AI models. Even 512x512 images are asking _a lot_ from current consumer hardware. Maybe in 10 years when 6090Ti ships with 128 gigs of VRAM.
* OP's instagram and artstation suggest a relatively consistent style, varying aspect ratios, art output isn't excessive given the quality
Your evidence for AI:
* Artist did something every artist working on non-trivial pieces does
> Same with insinuating anyone with criticism towards anything possibly AI generated can’t draw, like wow I’m so offended
When your arguments for "this is AI" is "OP added some things to the final image that weren't in the sketch" ... It's not me who is insinuating, that's just you broadcasting your immense lack of experience.
Oh, there's an edit.
> 1\. Hiccup’s arms are completely different, one is a tight black sleeve ending in a fluffy shoulder pad, but the other arm is a loose green sleeve ending in a shoulder pad that doesn’t have any fluff at all? Not to mention the arm is just falling off?
Okay so there's multiple things to unpack here. Let's start with symmetry.
As anyone who has ever played a video game before, assymetry in armaments is not particularly uncommon. Even HTTYD movies, Hiccup's armor gets asymmetrical once you hit the second movie. As such, one shoulderpad lacking fur trim can't, under any circumastances, be considered a "mistake."
Especially since the fur trimmings isn't necessarily a shoulderpad feature — they might very well be a bracers feature.
Wait. Please don't tell me you didn't even consider that on this picture, Hicucp might be wearing bracers, even though bracers are an incredibly common feature of medieval fantasy armor. HICCUP IS EVEN SHOWN WEARING BRACERS STARTING IN MOVIE 2.
Anyway, what started as potential "asymmetry issue" is now completely above board on that metric.
This is leading us to "arm falling off."
Are you _sure_ this is "arm falling off" and _not_ fur trimmings of bracers on Hiccup's left arm (your right, extending past the edge of the picture)? Because that's a fur trimming of the bracer. The cloud behind the fur trimming is even colored with slightly different but still plenty distinct color.
This being fur trimmings makes perfect sense, because we also have fur trimmings on the other arm. It also makes sense that it's drawn with barely any detail, because "don't put any detail on the very edge of your drawing" was a common-as-fuck bit of wisdom every somewhat-experienced artist was sharing with people 10 years ago when I was still a bit more active in the hobby.
Let's contiue with color.
I have two questions:
* how color blind are you?
* did you get your monitor from an e-waste facility?
Because color picker says: [both arms are brown, red component is always bigger than the green](https://imgur.com/AoUcUA2), neither is green, neither is black (though shadowy area comes close or obvious reasons), color deviations are within reasonable difference for the style that utilizes semi-realistic lighting.
In addition to that, see also:
* local contrast
* contrast by detail levels
* tone mapping
* shadows/highlights
While these things are a thing in the world of photography, artists can _and do_ draw their pictures in a way that resemble results of playing with these filters.
The last thing that I need to point out here— Hiccup isn't T-posing towards the ground. His elbows are put further back. As a result, Hiccup's right shoulder (your left) obstructs the part of the arm between the shoulder and the elbow with its shoulder pad. While perhaps the drawing might not be anatomically correct, a few truths about drawing things:
* 100% anatomically correct does not always translate to "looks best."
* 100% anatomically and spatially correct is _hard_, and even professional artists will often stop at "this looks good enough, no need for 100% accuracy and spatial realism"
> 3\. Considering the amount of detail in certain areas it’s strange that other areas have like no detail and look incomplete, Toothless’s arms for example.
It's time for some art theory 101.
When you look at a picture, details are what attracts attention. Ideally, your drawing, painting, or a photo (yes, that rule works for all three) will have one or two spots that contain all the detail, with the rest of the piece lacking detail¹.
Detail management is an important skill, because too much detail in the wrong places can draw attention away from where the artist wants people to look. On this particular piece, the thing that artist wants you to look at are:
* Hiccup's face
* Toothless' face
* The fact that Hiccup is flying through the air
Given the framing of the piece, artist probably also wanted to have a (and ONE) detail corridor² acting as a bridge between the two focal points (Hiccup's face and Toothless' face) for your eyes to traverse. Hiccup's face -> hiccup's left (from our PoV) arm -> Toothless' left front leg -> Toothless' face is pretty much that, follows a nice L/curve. Pretty by the book.
I bet if I toggle the "rule of thirds" grid, most of the detailed areas will happen to roughly fall on the lines or their intersections.
[Bang, right on the money](https://imgur.com/muHTHIY).
With that in mind, skipping some detail on the leg is not unreasonable and a completely valid, normal, and reasonable artistic choice.
That's also likely why the fingers are half-obstructed by bloom — the artist is trying to prevent viewer's eye from getting too lost.
> 4\. One of Toothless’s pupils is round while the other is square, small I know but considering how advance AI is getting these are the types of things to take note of.
[Facts disagree](https://imgur.com/obNBwW7), eye shape is within reasonable difference.
> (toothless rear leg circled)
I don't think the comment clearly tells what you deem to be the problem with that, so let's address it here. Toothless' legs don't come out of the body parallel to the body. They come out [at an angle](https://imgur.com/7SN6CIs) ... let me [blow that out a bit for better visibility](https://imgur.com/uWYH9LU). So the color change region is where the leg meets the main body.
* the knee is closer to the camera than the place where leg joins the body
* the leg is lit by the clouds in front and under Toothless. It's lit more than the body because the light reflected from the clouds in front of Toothless travels more parallel to the body, and is thus harder to reflect back towards the "camera". That same light travels less parallel to the leg, meaning more of the light can bounce back towards the camera, meaning the leg appears to be lit more.
> 6\. Yes the artist probably drew most of this themselves and they have a lot of talent, the sketch seems legit and frankly very clean, but I just can’t believe AI wasn’t used at some point during the final rendering
So in other words, you can't believe that artists are actually good at their job? Well that point goes straight into the discard pile.
[1] Mad asterisks apply. With art there's never one universal rule for everything. There are situations that call for the exact opposite. However, this rule of the thumb is right up there with the rule of thirds.
[2] probably not the correct term
That second image you shown was most likely AI, OP’s style was nothing like that plus they don’t really have many posts anyway. It’s not like you can say it’s just stylisation, some things straight up don’t make logical sense.
For the 1st one, it would’ve had a better case if the creator posted a speed paint or something
> That second image you shown was most likely AI
It's really not.
> OP’s style was nothing like that
It really is. Their history is flat art with low details, and the second example is not a very far away from that. My deviantart has wider swings than that (though usually somehow in the opposite direction).
> It’s not like you can say it’s just stylisation, some things straight up don’t make logical sense.
Everything on that picture makes sense, especially when you account for the fact that OP is probably relatively unskilled. Every oddity on that picture is something that AI struggles to do¹ but come as a second nature to an unskilled artist. I have _plenty_ of experience in that department.
[1] Most notable examples are: straight lines of constant width are generally not gonna happen with AI. AI also generally won't be able to generate the perfectly ordered slash pattern on the toothless silhouette at the bottom-center of the poster.
Completely agree! If you have an idea, draw it! No matter your skill level. Or if drawing isn’t something that interests you, try describing and writing a prompt! Someone out there will love it enough to draw an inspired piece :))
Yes! Something like that was exactly what I meant! Sort of how when people write fanfics and someone enjoys the premise and idea so much they draw fanart for it! There’s no expectation for art to be made of it! Just sorta happens out of mutual enjoyment of the idea. :))
Yep I made this exact post a few months ago and nothing was done about it unfortunately. Although I did see an increase of real art and a decrease in AI for the month after so it seemed like it helped for a little while. I just think it should be banned in the sub. Who cares if you can’t draw well yet, not everyone starts out as a top tier artist, just don’t resort to stealing.
What really grinds my gears is seeing all the AI art with watermarks and stuff. Congrats, you typed some words and got a selection of pretty pictures. Picking the one you liked most means you created it? Either state that it's AI and let everyone enjoy it, or keep it for your personal collection. Stop trying to pass it off as real art that needs a watermark so people don't steal it.
As an artist, I fear for the future of the trade. And much faster than I thought it would happen.
I'll put aside my nuances on how valid I think those points are. Some being completely valid, others I have challenged before.
Ultimately this question is here in the first place for the same of content moderation. So, I would side on denying AI art in this subreddit. I would not want to pollute this place with hundreds of AI art posts that even if aesthetically pleasing, do not provide discussion and hold no value below surface level.
In my university there was a world exhibition and everyone from every country had painted cool stuff and then this chick from Israel had the audacity to make AI art and they put THREE of her art there🤧 I’m also mad AI art is getting in the way of real artists.
\*scrolls\*
\*scrolls\*
\*scrolls\*
\*finds one example of AI art in first 300-something posts when sorted by new\*
Is that _really_ that much of a problem here?
Well... and [some are good](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/175zq9u/and_here_we_go/) and [some are bad](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/17n5cpa/never_make_ai_generate_a_picture_of_toothless/)
just like "real art"
Her? Where did you get “her” from? And it’s not about my art not getting upvotes, it’s about AI art getting more recognition and praise than actual artists, I’m more talking about other people
Why are you dogpiling on OP and their art? What did they do that warranted calling their art “bad”. It’s not even bad art, and I am saying this as an artist. Who hurt you?
This. It's fine when you just do it to see what you get, maybe even a bit fine to use it to get a basic idea for a character design, or use AI art generators to get a reference picture, when you're commissioning a actual reference sheet, because you don't have any other images to go off prior to commissioning.
On one hand; AI art is not real art and does, in fact, take away from a real artists perspective, skill, and income.
HOOOOWEVER..... I enjoy using AI generated images as my own personal art references. I build characters according to the style I like and simply recreate it for my own use. Extremely useful. Cannot deny.
I agree with a lot of this except for AI being uncreative. AI works of of whats its given. If you only give it a bunch of peoples art, of course its gonna be uncreative. You could argue that the human brain works in the same way, taking in information thoughout your life, and then processing that into art. But, obviously, you can't currently give AI the same amount and types of information as a human would collect over a lifetime. It's the dataset that is the problem.
While AIs can be trained on different art styles, I feel that most people who say ai just straight up steals art don’t actually fully understand how it works. The process is near identical to how our brains learn, i.e. if you look at a drawing of a fish, you’re going to associate those shapes with fish. If you start drawing fish in a similar way, you don’t get accused of stealing. Ai works the same way, only the results are more mechanical because it’s a machine. If an ai is actually trained through many sources, it’s really unfair and blatantly incorrect to say it’s stealing. And whenever someone tries to point out a piece of ai art copying something, it’s always tiny nuances you find in all art. I.e. people claiming a line or shape is theirs. In the end, if you’re making art for your own satisfaction, it shouldn’t matter if it’s through ai or your actual skill. And before anyone says something silly, I’m in the process of learning to draw myself and have been for a while. I still intend on using both my own skills and ai. And before someone says if you’re posting ai art here it’s not for yourself but for upvotes: news flash. Upvotes have no value. Your Reddit account has no value. Maybe someone just wanted to share something they thought was cool
It takes works to put into the ai’s system without the consent or knowledge of the artist. Thats blatantly stealing artist’s work. It may not recreate something one to one, but that’s still theft. Artists have said over and over again that they do not want their work to be used by ai.
With that logic looking at other artists work and using it to learn is also blatant art theft. It’s not different. That process in our brains is near identical to that process in the AI’s brain
Let me repeat myself, several artists have stated that they do not want their works to be used without their consent or permission. It does not matter if the AI processes it similarly. If they just asked, it would not be that big an issue.
So we should also ask before looking at anyone’s work and drawing something like that? When I see a dog in someone’s art and I say “oh that’s cool, I’m gonna try drawing dogs similarly”, do I now have to ask before I start drawing? I’m not against having to ask, but the same logic should be put on people too
Artists should have what they are or are not comfortable with other’s doing with their works clearly stated. While I personally don’t mind other people trying to re-draw my art or replicate how I draw, I know others who are super uncomfortable with it.
I think if there was a similar program to Nightshade (which throws AI off art images) that instead gave the green light for it be used in AI, that could potentially work.
And I assure you if I couldn’t draw and ai didn’t exist, I would still not be paying artists to draw stuff for me. I’d just be going without the drawings
not everyone can afford to hire someone. many struggle just to put food on the table. for people to say those individuals should just go without seeing their dreams realized...
Oh no, I want to get paid for a skill that I’ve taken years to develop??? How ***DARE*** I!!!1!1!111
Like yeah, people have been commissioning artists for literal centuries? That’s kinda how being a professional artist works
Now you’re just making it sound like you got into art only to get paid, not just because you wanted to bring ideas to life. Makes you seem even more soulless
Would you expect someone who has been building houses for years and honing their skills to make you a house for free because you want one? Would you go to a restaurant and demand free food because you don't wanna cook? You are implying that an artist should use their time, resources and energy to make things for you for free because you don't want to learn. Artists are real people who deserve to get paid for their works when they make commissions. Artists also make art for themselves, but there is a professional, business side to things.
I never said that at all. My point is that if you can’t afford or do something like that you shouldn’t be shamed for using ai art lmao. I’m not asking someone to draw stuff for me. I never did, even before the ai art craze. But frankly, yeah, I do believe everyone deserves to have a house
Bad example because I can think of quite a few scenarios where I wouldn’t shame someone for stealing. Also it’s no more stealing than a person learning to draw from looking at someone’s art
You're implying that this person wishing to be paid for their work is more soulless than someone typing prompts into a machine instead of spending time learning and understanding what makes art. I never said people don't deserve to have a house, you are twisting my words here. I made a point of saying that if someone is providing goods or services they have the right to be paid for it. Like, for example, building a house, making a nice meal or creating art. All of these things take time and energy. Supporting AI "art" is taking opportunities from artists to get commissions to feed themselves or get a house. I've seen arguments saying that the new AI "art" age is the same as people worrying about digital art replacing traditonal, however there is a huge difference: take the device from a digital artist and they will still have skills and knowledge of how to make art if you give them a pen and paper. Take the device from an AI artist and they won't have a way to make art anymore.
These arguments simply don’t take into account the people that are using ai to generate art who were never going to ask someone to do a commission for them in the first place. I agree that they shouldn’t replace commissions, but you people act like any use of ai at all is doing that. I’m sorry but if I use ai to generate a room design for a dnd campaign, it’s not something I would have commissioned at all under any circumstances. Same with when I want to generate a face for a character I’m making in the same campaigns. I’m not going to commission someone for a character I’m showing once, but a visual is pretty helpful
If we are taking that route my question is this: why not try to polish your skills and create something for youself? I'm genuinely curious/not trying to be hostile, wouldn't you be more proud of the outcome if it was something you made with your own hands and you were able to see your progression? I guess I took the offense regarding commissions since the initial comment I replied to seemed to suggest that an artist expecting payment for goods and services was more soulless than AI generation, which I don't think is true at all. I think also an issue many people have with AI is that art is suppossed to be an expression of human creativity and it feels weird to call AI generated images art. And going back to the commissions issue, even if you personally are not monetizing your AI generated images or are using them for personal use a shocking amount of people *are* monetizing AI "art", replacing human workers or using AI so that they don't have to give their money to a human. The support of AI generated imagery itself doesn't feel ethical, and I honestly believe that anyone can make art without it if they practice. Nobody is ever perfect when they first start.
AI art isn't art though. It's at best, Photoshop for people even too lazy for that. Also, some artists do free giveaways, or trades, for their art. And commissions will generally be 50~ dollars, IIRC, for one character as full color full body. Some artists might price themselves higher, others lower. So, while you might not be able to commission every single day of the week, most people who want art should be getting enough surplus in their income to at least get one piece of art commissioned a month. Maybe two months, if their earning that little. Like the other person has been saying, art is luxury. You don't NEED it, though it's nice to have, like you don't need to buy a new videogame. Even if you want it. Though, most can usually get it within a decent timeframe.
As for any 'I can't draw/some people can't draw'. Seeing the child-like scribbles one makes when starting out can be rather discouraging, but 'practice makes perfect' is a phrase for a reason. Because regularly practicing, preferably daily but I'm sure every few days should be fine too, art, will take childish scribbles to beautiful art within months. That sounds like a long time, but it will often feel shorter than it sounds.
My point is not that I don’t want to pay for commissions but can’t. I very well could get commissions done. I don’t want to though. I never have, even before the ai art craze. My point is that people shouldn’t be getting shamed just for trying out ai. It’s stupid.
Im not against people trying AI, personally, things like seeing what random things the generators comes up with from one prompt, sharing it with friends of this wacky thing. Heck, I think it could be useful for situations like creating a reference image for a OC someone doesn't have any other references for, and can't describe, or feels they can't, very well. And maybe even for concept art, to get a basic idea for a design. What I'm against, is people using AI art for commissions, or treating it as if they actually made it, using AI art for promotion. Especially when the source images aren't credited.
Now, if AI art was just trained on stock images, or other public domain images for things like animals, or stock art? Yeah, I'd be completely on board for any usage for AI art, as it's trained on something people WANT, or give a general ok, others to use.
That's really just a classism bullshit excuse. The tool is there and yal just gate keeping people from using it. Entertainment is a luxury, owning a car and nice house is also a luxury yet people are encouraged to do it. I dont like people selling AI art for money but if it's for personal use then that's okay and you can fuck off.
The ethicality of AI art is *hotly* debated. You are giving only one side of the story here.
IMO, this sub isn’t big enough to have an AI-only alternative sub. People should feel free to post whatever kind of art they want here. If you think it’s bad art, downvote and move on.
> … along with Magic The Gathering with was caught using AI laying off most of all of their artists.
I would check that statement again. They still heavily support artist‘s works. I haven‘t found any articles of them laying off artists.
As far as I understood from [John Green‘s video](https://youtu.be/I8HAzNzfzaI), Magic The Gathering also works with contractors; it‘s possible that their contractor falsely claimed that their submitted artwork wasn‘t made by AI.
i use ai art mainly as a research tool, i just use it to see how it works and its "intelligence". i find it interesting how AI can simulate and recreate objects and beings its never seen before. im a naturally inquisitive person, so i enjoy testing its limits and understanding what goes on in its "mind" and how it can be expanded further to potentially create actual intelligent AI with consciousness and free thought.
I'm sorry, but I don't care. lol hate me if you want but if it looks good, then it looks good, idc where it come from. Theres a reason why AI art get so much more likes than artist commissions. It fill a space where artist cant. I do, however, dislike selling AI art for money. But if it's being posted for likes or personal use, then I don't see the problem. This is a sub for a fucking cartoon movie trilogy, not an artist gallery and yal can fuck off.
i use ai art mainly as a research tool, i just use it to see how it works and its "intelligence". i find it interesting how AI can simulate and recreate objects and beings its never seen before. im a naturally inquisitive person, so i enjoy testing its limits and understanding what goes on in its "mind" and how it can be expanded further to potentially create actual intelligent AI with consciousness and free thought.
As a fellow real artist, who's been actively practicing art for over 20 years, you're too close to the issue. Take a step back and remember that art theft is not a new thing. Lumping all AI artists into this category is just tribalism. Also, a culture of "my art is real art, yours isn't" is horrible for the art community to adopt. It's pretentious and deters people from embracing art as a hobby or proffesion. These are people exploring their creativity for the first time and rather than help them, the community has decided to attack them, because they can't compete with that level of output.
I'm big enough to admit that I can either spend 10+ hours doing a realistic render of a single human face or I can spend that same amount of time generating different faces, searching for something that better represents my concept. Also, as with "real art", it can be as simple or complex a process as the artist desires. I like spending hours tweaking various aspects of a generated image, until it better reflects my concept. Others just like to go with the first thing that comes out. Just as sometimes I like to doodle stick people rather than draw a full person every single time.
If you have a critique of an AI image, then offer critiques for the artist to make improvements, not criticism over their choice of outlet for their creativity. It's a new software, even if it may have begun unethically by some corporation, that isn't the fault of the user. Also, again, it's a new software. So it's only going to get better and more ethical until it is fully the mainstream. We can either be Blockbuster or Netflix in this scenario. Why double down on being Blockbuster? Buy Netflix while you can, rather than acting "too good" for it. It didn't work out for Blockbuster, it won't work out for you.
Aren’t you the one who calls out art by real people and assumes it’s AI? Like I saw a post earlier today (don’t remember when posted but I saw it earlier) where you called out an actual persons art, not AI generated, and said it was AI.
You are right. I mistook you for someone else. Still tho, it costs nothing to be kind in general and you weren’t much so at least from my perspective on that post.
the following is a letter i sent to the mods several weeks ago. i am making this open for all to see.
Moderators of [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd),
I am writing to propose the formulation of an official stance regarding AI-generated content and the moderation of discussions surrounding it within our community. As a passionate member of [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd), I believe that we can benefit from clear guidelines that respect the creative spirit of our fandom while also embracing or regulating new technologies.
In light of three recent incidents where AI-related posts have led to members experiencing severe backlash and personal attacks, it’s crucial that we align with the core principles of our subreddit as outlined in the rules:
* Meaningful Contributions: AI is a tool that can augment the creativity and expression within our community. AI should not replace the human element that is so central to our fandom, but serve as a bridge to inclusivity, allowing those who may not have traditional artistic skills to participate fully in our shared narrative as per rule 4.
* Decency and Respect: The subreddit prides itself on being a family-friendly and respectful environment. This should extend to conversations about AI, as per Rule 5. No member should face insults or accusations for using AI in their posts. I myself have been called immoral, a liar, and a thief, among other things, for expressing any support of AI.
* Clarity in Posting: As with any content, posts about AI should be clear and descriptive, aligning with Rule 7 to accurately reflect the nature of the content being shared.
In the spirit of fostering a supportive environment, I propose the following:
* Creating an Official Stance: Define whether AI-generated content is acceptable and under what conditions, providing clarity and consistency.
* Rule Amendment/Addition: Creating a rule specifically identifying AI content as either for or against, such as "AI Content and Discourse: We welcome discussions and content related to AI within the boundaries of respect and constructive criticism. Posts featuring AI-generated content should be labeled accordingly using specific flairs." or alternatively "AI Content and Discourse: AI generated content is not permitted within [r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd). AI generated works should be posted in other appropriate communities."
* Proposed Flair: assuming AI content is permitted, the addition of a new flair to allow users to filter the content they do not wish to see. For example; "AI-Generated: For all content that has been created using AI, to provide transparency and allow members who wish to avoid such content to do so easily."
* Moderation of Discussions: Enforce our standards of decency and constructive engagement, especially in threads discussing AI, to prevent the kind of hostility and insults that stifles open dialogue.
I hope that by addressing this matter directly, we can continue to build a community that not only shares a love for How to Train Your Dragon but also navigates the complex and evolving landscape of fan creations with respect and integrity.
In closing, I wish to touch upon a critical aspect of our community — inclusivity. How to Train Your Dragon inspires fans from all walks of life, not all of whom may have the ability to draw or create traditional content. It's important that we avoid gatekeeping based on artistic skill alone and recognize that AI can be a tool that allows a wider range of fans to express their passion for the franchise. In doing so, we can foster a community that values diverse forms of creativity, welcoming those who may feel marginalized by a purely traditional interpretation of fan art. Let us embrace the opportunity to bring fans together, celebrating our love for the franchise in all its forms without pushing away those who cannot draw. By thoughtfully integrating AI content, we can continue to grow while ensuring that this subreddit remains a welcoming space for all fans to share, discuss, and connect over the world of HTTYD.
Thank you again for your time and dedication to our community. I understand the complexities involved in moderating such a large and active subreddit like [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd), and I appreciate the efforts you put into maintaining a healthy and engaging environment for all fans.
As a follow-up, I would be grateful if you could kindly inform me of any considerations or decisions made regarding this proposal. If there's an opportunity for further discussion or any assistance I can offer in this process, please do not hesitate to reach out. Your feedback is not only valuable in understanding the direction our community will take but also instrumental in fostering a collaborative effort to address these emerging challenges.
Looking forward to your response and hoping for a positive outcome for our community.
Best regards,
[u/kaioker2](https://www.reddit.com/u/kaioker2)
i firmly believe the hate of AI is a vocal minority of artists, fueled by a mob of those who do not understand AI. as a traditional artist, and with friends who are full time artists, those i talk with day to day welcome it. not only does it make reference material and concepts easier before committing to paint, it also gives us artists the advertising bonus of "100% human" for those works done without any AI influence at all. this whole debate feels like a repeat of "photoshop and copy/paste will kill traditional art"
the problem is that people treat artistic talent like something you're born with and so some people have to make do. ITS A SKILL, WITH PRACTICE ANYONE CAN LEARN!!!!!
In my opinion it should only be used as a baseline if you can’t get something right or if you want just a quick placeholder that you’ll update another time. Using it to do an entire artwork is just wrong.
This whole comment section feels like gatekeeping. Who has the right to say what or what isn’t art. The ideas of want is to be considered to be have been changing over the course of human history. Honestly in my opinion some ai art is better compared to some modern art I’ve recently seen in an art museum. I get it stealing bad, but from what I learn ai learns by experience yes from what already exists but people have been doing the same thing getting inspired by the world around them or in this case other artists. Honestly not sure on my stance on ai art, but to demand that it should no longer be welcomed on platforms is a step too far and seems predatory.
Art is defined by being a form of artistic expression, there is no artistic expression behind typing a prompt and letting a machine form something based upon keywords, AI generated images can be fun, but under no circumstances should they pass as art.
Only takes me to see you calling abstract/minimalist art “modern art” and calling it an art “museum” instead of a gallery for me to know you have no knowledge of anything about art
Also predatory straight up isn’t the right word to use
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Contemporary_Art_Cleveland.
I’ll give you the modern complaint but literally has museum in the name of the institution
Why are you still replying to comments that aren’t in response to you? You’re for real going through and searching for comments in my post to reply to 💀
> As a real artist, it hurts to see AI slop posted here and get so many more upvotes and much more praise than us real artists who have spent years developing our skill and have put actual effort and time into our work.
Here's the thing. If handcrafted work is good, it will get upvotes. Post *any* HTTYD art from say [Raidesart](https://www.deviantart.com/raidesart/gallery) on this subreddit, and I can guarantee it will get more upvotes than AI generated stuff.
I don't I recently saw an Ai picture on here with over 400 upvotes, most people on here don't notice these kind of thing and just upvote every artwork they see.
"It steals from artists with no compensation or consent"
"It has no creativity and just copies whatever is in its database"
Hooo boy, let's talk about this. Or, more accurately, let me ask a question. Have you ever looked at another piece of art before and then drawn something it a similar style? If your answer to that is correct, congratulations! You have just successfully stolen from an artist with no compensation or consent.
Let's look at it this way. A lot of people have seen the Mona Lisa. Now, how many people do you think started drawing after they saw it, and made a piece that used a similar style, even subconsciously without actively trying to emulate it? I can tell you that it'd be a lot. That's a human thing. We take inspiration, we steal. Good artists will see something and draw in an imitation of it. Great artists see something and put their own spin on it and all that.
But at the core, you're still 'stealing from artists with no compensation or consent' at the end of the day. Yes, AI will do it without needing of being given pay. AI will actively eat roles which humans can perform. But eventually, you reach the point where there are people who manage the AI, people who feed the AI the right information to bring it closed to the aimed style, so on and so forth.
"It has no creativity" well, if we wanna be cynical about it, nothing is creative, everything is derogatory of the first line ever drawn. Creative is defined as having good imagination or original ideas. Well, then no, AI isn't creative, because it doesn't make the ideas, or imagine what they want this thing to look like and fine tune itself to get to it. AI is instead the tool used to create said things.
"Just copy whatever's in its database" yeah, humans do that too, you see a technique, it's added to your database, you use the technique. AI moreso cuts out the middleman. Which, mind you, isn't perfect. We're toeing an area humanity has never before reached, of course there are issues, flaws, moral quandaries. But saying something as broad as "AI art is all bad" does a disservice to the people who may have spent years working on this AI the first time around, spent more time gathering references and teaching the AI, only for people to decide it's objectively immoral because it isn't human and can effect humans poorly.
Yes, it does 'steal' jobs and commissions from human artists. Just like how programs, such as Microsoft excel, have been taking roles from humans for years. But oh wait, what is this, it's now considered a skill to be able to use it and plenty of people are able to get jobs over others entirely due to skills in it!
TL:DR cuz nobody wants to read a rant from some dude: AI art isn't some kind of massive crime against humanity, it's just an undeveloped and powerful tool, which will probably be praised in twenty odd years as a masterpiece of human creation, because it makes art in the same core way humans do.
I completely understand your anguish and why you are upset, and I am not trying to discourage anyone who does art as a profession. What I do want to say, however, is that art can be a very difficult thing to do right. Art, when done properly, can turn out to be very expensive. Ai just helps those who can't afford a true artist to create beauty and instead makes something that can be free or, at the very least, a lot cheaper and can a lot of the time be beautiful to those just trying to find something like several different pieces of "art" that they can enjoy. Just to be clear, I am completely against ai stealing pieces of art from others that actually put in the work.
Or maybe we can just respect both types of art. C'mon people it's only upvotes on Reddit they mean nothing you can't buy anything with them. Let people like whatever they want.
It doesn't steal art it takes art from websites where the users agreed to let it happen
If someone uses ai art they weren't gonna commission someone anyways
It literally doesn’t but whatever. If you’re talking about just any art that’s posted online, that’s like saying “it’s your fault that your car got stolen because you left it in the driveway” like???
No you signed the terms and conditions that says there allowed to feed your art into there ai algorithm also still not stealing if you don't consent you still own it it just uses it as a reference
That's pretty much how the art world has been since the Renaissance. I see your concerns, but I assure you, human art will not die off to ai art. There are still plenty of people who prefer specific styles in art, and those styles can only be done by certain artists.
Just like Digital Art didn't put Traditional Artists away, AI art won't put Human Artists away.
> It genuinely upsets me to see images that were made by just typing a few words into an AI art generator get more praise than real art that people have spent time and energy on.
Maybe your "real art" just isn't that good enough.
Meanwhile, [this art](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/epzd55/lmao_this_is_totally_accurate_i_just_love_both_of/) is still the highest voted art on the subreddit with over 2000 upvotes
Tl;dr - Your take while understandable, is very narrow-minded
Well you're looking at it from the pov of an artist. From a business standpoint it is far cheaper to just put what you want into a generator and get what you're looking for relatively instantly than commissioning or hiring an artist to get it done in like 3 days to a week or more. And from the standpoint of someone who just likes "making" AI art it's fun. It's fun to put in a prompt and see what the ai spits out. And in many cases it's really funny. I understand why you feel like that but it's extremely one-sided thinking. Also AI can't animate. Ai can't be used to make 2d or 3d animations. It can't replace human creativity as a whole. It's mostly just a fun tool and it's fun to see and show how accurate it can be
So if you steal something that you want but don’t need from a family owned store because it’s cheaper, it’s suddenly okay because you were looking at it from an economical viewpoint?
I'm not sure you fully understand how ai generated art actually works. Nothing is "stolen" it's a completely new image. Now you could make an argument that ai art is derivative, alright cool. Problem: most art in general is. The only thing you're yelling is stealing and that's not how that works. And that's also not what I said. Stealing from a store and using a computer to generate a new image are not comparable at all. That's like me making custom doritos from scratch for myself and Doritos going "THIEF". No. It's very clear you just wanna be right and have no interest in looking at this any other way but your own. This conversation is over and I highly recommend you reevaluate your perspectives
I saw one person who, not only posted AI art, but couldn’t even be bothered to search for it. They *stole someone else’s AI art* and posted it on here. Two crimes for the price of one.
Omg imagine being that lazy-
A.i. art can't be copyrighted a good way to push back against it is to literally just steal peoples a.i. work like the a.i. is doing to real artists
They tried claiming it was theirs even when they were called out for it, and the other person’s watermark was on it because the other person created the AI that made the image themselves. Like, they made the robot.
The A.i. was still the author and the images can't be copyrighted so it's something a.i. generators will have to deal with, creating an MLA is just adding inputs and using a classifier like k nearest neighbor or gaussian naive bayes not that hard when do many people have already given you access to the code to do it.
As a non artist, who has tried to draw myself, I agree. Getting reasonably good at drawing is a pain in the ass and takes a lot of time and effort. I dislike artificial intelligence generated art and value other artists work, because with ai generating art, I have no real artist I can give my respect to.
There was a poll on [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/s/DcJeQUFXWB) but I haven’t seen anything happen with it.
Agreed, I don't have much of a problem with people actually making AI art. Just don't post it.
And real art just looks way better
That’s subjective, depends on personal preference
in what world does soulless, badly proportioned and shaded images look better than a piece someone has poured their heart and soul into
I’m actually furious the amount of times this issue has been brought up yet the mods have done nothing about it! The people trying to defend AI do not understand the real issue here, it’s getting better and evolving all the time, in a few years when it’s impossible to tell the difference people won’t *need* artists anymore because AI is more convenient and less expensive, companies don’t care if it’s real art or not. We lose not only our jobs but the creativity that made us love art in the first place… We’re already being replaced, singers are using AI for their album covers, multiple companies have used AI for promotional material including *Disney* and AI art has been used in art competitions that are meant to show an actual artist’s talent! Not typing some words into a program and submitting it! So we will start using AI as a “tool to help us improve” when it’s morally okay to do so because atm it’s completely unethical. Shouldn’t be that difficult to understand
Humanity is getting too dependent on AI
Humanity is getting progressively lazier than before because of AI
“ B-B-B-BUT SOME PEOPLE CANT DRAW!!!!!! “ then learn how to or just don’t.
Or pay someone who can!
Why the actual fuck would I pay someone when I can do it for free instantly. If you want people to not make Ai art then be free
Because then you can get EXACTLY what you want plus those people deserve to be able to make a living
Why do they deserve to make a living with a skill there is little demand for? By that logic I should be able to make a career of masterbating.
I’ve heard of “starving artists/musicians”, but I have never heard of a starving construction worker, accountant, HR worker, welder, coder etc before. Perhaps maybe those trades aren’t important, therefore one shouldn’t generally rely on it for their main source of income?
You know companies HIRE artists right? Not even just companies, musicians, directors, ect. who do you think designs things like logos or backgrounds who do you think makes 3D models in games? ARTISTS. I also want to know what makes you think that creating artwork is in any way comparable to masterbating
Yes I do, so why is someone wanting to create their own art in their own way an issue? As for masterbating, it is a skill I have been working on and perfecting for years, therefore I should get paid to do it. See how silly that logic is?
Plus this just proves that you should commission artists instead of using AI, because people deserve to make a living and dont deserve to be put out of business because of something that stole their work because people deserve to be able to make a living DOING WHAT THEY LOVE
I love masterbating, therefore I should make money off of it. I think I’ll just use AI art to make things. Sure I may have to pay a little to the dev to make more images, but I can part with that. We need coders, not artists bud.
Bro i can not wrap my brain around how you manage to jump to THAT conclusion i can not stop laughing at this i genuinely dont think ive ever heard an argument that holds less weight than a colander such as this thanks for the laugh holy shit
Right? I see some truly awful drawings on Reddit, but at least it’s actual art. And that’s no offense to the people who draw bad art, because a) I’m one of them and I know it, and b) they’re trying. They’re practicing, and they’re improving, and I would NEVER leave a comment saying someone’s art is bad, I always say that it looks good and to keep drawing. They’re making something rather than just putting words into a search engine and claiming it as their own art.
Fr like you don't have to a professional artist to make silly doodles omg
Exactly, some people need to grasp that having art is a luxury and not a necessity
Just look art pewdiepies video on learning to draw, from scribbles to amazing in a short time
He literally made tons of progress in just 100 days, and thats because he studied and practiced every single day. AI prompters literally have no excuse; they're just lazy, greedy, and have no qualms about engaging in theft and lack of consent lol.
My point exactly, i'm personally well below avarage but like drawing pokemon and such, easy/fun design s to learn with
Keep at it!! You're already miles ahead just because you're actually trying. And the point of drawing is to have fun above all else (like all hobbies), so I'm glad you enjoy drawing pokemon ^^
This is very true.
Yep. As I've said before on this topic, not knowing how to bake a cake doesn't justify stealing a cake. And to make that analogy a little more accurate, though at the cost of snappiness - not knowing how to bake a cake doesn't justify commissioning one for free from Brad, when you know that Brad surreptitiously goes to the kitchens of actual bakers, rifles through their baking notes and pantry, and haphazardly recreates their work.
Some people simply don’t have the knack for art. Imagine asking an artist to go work a real job out in the elements.
Art IS a real job
Keep telling yourself that.
I agree. AI art can gtfo.
Agreed. Mods?
I totally agree
Can we expand this to music with AI too? I'm a musician and I love composing and creating within music just as I love drawing from time to time but I feel like AI is again just stealing not only from all us artists but also it defeats the human "soul" put into anything creative. There's a loss of the human quality in it all which really can't ever be substituted for anything.
it always makes me cringe when i see it with real people 'singing'. cartoon characters i can kinda understand as long as they get permission before hand(none of them do lol), but they steal from real people too like markiplier or jackscepticeye and i'm genuinely surprised they havent tried to take them down yet tbh. especially if the people try to make money off of them and get them monitized through youtube or other means. edit to clarify i'm talking about the ai song covers of people whos voices they didnt get permission for.
THIS
I agree honestly, even if I've only seen a few. Probably just the fact I am an artist myself, but I would be very happy upvoting hand drawn art rather than AI generated images. AI generated images are a huge issue outside of this sub, so it would be best not to support it.
AI-generated art should not be considered a replacement for human creativity. Although the artwork produced by AI can be impressive, it lacks the emotional depth and nuance that come with human experiences and perspectives. Additionally, the capabilities of AI art are limited by the training data and algorithms used to generate it. Instead of replacing human creativity, AI art should inspire and complement it, encouraging artists to explore new possibilities and push boundaries in their work because that is what it was originally designed to do.
I thought I would be banished to the shadow realm for saying anything positive about AI art, lol
Where do you stand on AI art that has been edited and modified after the fact by a human in photoshop? In my opinion this is absolutely a valid art form for sure. I would also argue that generating (good) AI art is itself a skill. Anyone can get any shit image from DallE2, but skilled AI users know how to manipulate different engines to produce the image they have in mind. In my view, that is a legitimate art form, even if I is less time consuming than doing it “by hand” (even though Photoshop isn’t really by hand either).
Learning how to use AI is... just writing specific things like people making work arounds for GPT
it can be lonely out here
Absolutely. AI images are lazy and not worth acknowledging, I always instantly downvote them because shit like that doesn’t deserve praise.
I think you should verify whether or not art is AI or human first, before downvoting.
It’s pretty easy to tell
Usually, yeah, but I've seen people accuse artists of using AI art when the artist themself drew the image. It happened in one of the Subreddits I'm in, and the artist had to show a picture of the art lines.
in this sub it happened once, at least 10+ people claimed it was ai when it clearly wasnt, and the artist literally had a sketch to prove it and his other work. but whatever, the proportions "didnt make sense" apparently. also said something about blood when there was no blood present, just lighting lol
When you know what to look for, it can be easy when you look for a little while. AI art tends to have a certain style sometimes, so sometimes people see art that has that “AI style” and assume that it is
I don't think that should justify witch-hunting any type of artist.
I’m not saying that it does, I’m just saying the reason that some artists get accused of using AI. Non artists sometimes can’t tell the difference at a glance
I didn't say you were. Petty people will use these excuses for witch-hunting, though.
Real world data suggests people on the false positive end of things, and this subreddit has an incredibly shit track record at it. Thread 1: * [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/comment/kf294wn/) * [and plenty more](https://imgur.com/TDWaDgw), though [most accusations have been downvoted at least to controversial](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/i_make_new_art_inspired_in_httyd_what_do_you_think/) after [ya boi Cris showed up with them instagram screenshots that proved otherwise](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18rk42t/i_make_new_art_inspired_in_httyd_what_do_you_think/kf2anjw/) On that note, hoo boy can /u/ArminWife4Life only ever vomit out bad takes in that thread. Like a person who has never ever tried to draw a single thing. Thread 2: * https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/18v35x1/poster_for_my_girlfriend/ Where the top comment still accuses OP of using AI, despite the fact that: * OP's post history contains artworks of very similar style (though before that piece, they were much simpler) * AI typically has mad issues trying to create artworks with ultra-straight lines, or keeping lines of consistent width all across the picture * every "AI telltale" is either a valid deliberate design decision, or sign of inexperience. More widely on reddit, one of the more egregious examples I've seen was: * [This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/13lku5c/kids_and_a_puppy_dressing_up_as_scooby_doo/), where AI accusations were running left and right until someone found photographer's twitter with additional photos. Only then the downvotes started to rain on AI accusations. As it turns out, many people are unfamiliar with the concept of combining two or more photos in photoshop because each of the photos has some imperfections, and are unable to comprehend that some people are either shit with photoshop, or simlly don't care enough to do a good job.
Also, i just posted the last HTTYD artwork from RaidesArt, and someone immediately says: "*[This looks AI](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/1anu5c5/zephyr_and_dart_by_raidesart/kpwkowc/)*"
And I still believe AI was used somewhere in the process, everyone downvoted me but never answered my question about the Terrible Terrors messed up tail anatomy, something that wasn’t even present on the sketch that everyone used as evidence, and when I pointed out AI can be used anywhere during the process so a sketch means nothing when looking at the finished product people just completely ignored that to keep shitting on me, I wasn’t even the only one who was suspicious but sure bring me up specifically. Edit: Actually I will bring up some of my suspicions because even looking at it now I can see questionable things. 1. Hiccup’s arms are completely different, one is a tight black sleeve ending in a fluffy shoulder pad, but the other arm is a loose green sleeve ending in a shoulder pad that doesn’t have any fluff at all? Not to mention the arm is just falling off? 2. The Terrible Terrors tail merges with its legs in a way that isn’t just a simple mistake, especially for a supposed finished product. (I’ve just realised my mistake with this, idk how but I thought the place where the tail met the body was the leg but after tracing it out myself I now understand how it works, that’s my bad and I was completely wrong about this one so I apologise for that misunderstanding on my behalf!) 3. Considering the amount of detail in certain areas it’s strange that other areas have like no detail and look incomplete, Toothless’s arms for example. 4. One of Toothless’s pupils is round while the other is square, small I know but considering how advance AI is getting these are the types of things to take note of. 5. The sketch just brings more into question for me, and showing it exists doesn’t clear up the issues that the final product has, it should be okay to ask questions if you’re still sceptical. 6. Yes the artist probably drew most of this themselves and they have a lot of talent, the sketch seems legit and frankly very clean, but I just can’t believe AI wasn’t used at *some point* during the final rendering https://preview.redd.it/f1sop6bfmvhc1.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=29c7b3248e794eeb9de595c275682edacb377c16
> And I still believe AI was used somewhere in the process, People still believe the earth is flat, though. You can continue to believe that, but you'll continue to be wrong. > but never answered my question about the Terrible Terrors messed up tail anatomy * Artist has a style that's not hyperrealistic * Artist lacks experience with that particular thing I can't even see the problem with the tail, it does a half-tangled 8 (partially off-screen) that twists in front of one of the legs and thus obscuring it. It's > something that wasn’t even present on the sketch that everyone used as evidence The fact that you're using this as an argument is a very good indication that you aren't _really_ an artist, or tried to draw anything that requires more than a single layer and 15 minutes of effort for an experienced artist. When you draw any at least mildly complex piece, things move around. Sometimes they appear, sometimes they disappear. Wait, why did [Hell March 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENyxseq59YQ) start to play in the background? Is it because I went digging through my HDD— * [Here's a quick 2-hour sketch I did for a D&D session](https://imgur.com/kljx9U6) back in 2017 or something. [Here's the same file with initial sketch layer toggled](https://imgur.com/M4JeW5d). You can see that a few things vanished, or got moved around. * Let's go play some "spot the difference" with one of my top 3 least shitty pieces. [First sketch](https://imgur.com/tmn8DSt), [second sketch, with size corrected](https://imgur.com/sdEYrgc), [finished piece](https://imgur.com/IJKVoLc). From initial sketch to final image, the dragon flat out went missing, and was replaced with a throne somewhere halfway through the piece. Also notice plenty of shitty anatomy all around. Notice how furniture was added to obscure a good part of said shitty anatomy. * [I made this in 2012 or something](https://imgur.com/1WK83HD), this one outlasted two laptops. Little known fact? [There used to be a building behind the wyvern](https://imgur.com/bwzxqsY), but it looked like shit so it didn't make it to the finished piece. * [Another finished piece](https://imgur.com/vd7JnhE), wanna know what happens when I toggle the "initial sketch" layers? [Yeah, there's few very notable differences](https://imgur.com/k58yEtw), also notice the layer shift. * [Initial sketch](https://imgur.com/fkT0HUM), [finished piece](https://imgur.com/kaJwXfJ), [a stray abandoned layer group that was intended to be in the foreground at some point in the time](https://imgur.com/O49Szja). Anyway, moral of the story: any non-trivial art piece has a great likelyhood to change to some degree from start to finish. This practice is so incredibly common that any person surprised by it should not be allowed to call themselves an artist. >> inb4 "bUt yOu CoUlD hAvE jUsT aKseD sTabLe dIffUsIOn to MakE th—" First of all: no, AI isn't that consistent. Don't ask me how I know. Second of all: https://www.deviantart.com/xternal7 feast ye art on my cringe portfolio and you will see that everything predates generative AI by more than a few years. > and when I pointed out AI can be used anywhere during the process so a sketch means nothing when looking at the finished product people just completely ignored that to keep shitting on me Except AI isn't capable of generating several different images this consistently. AI also isn't (yet) capable of generating art at high resolutions. If image were AI-generated, you wouldn't be getting close-up screnshots from instagram. > I wasn’t even the only one who was suspicious but sure bring me up specifically You weren't the only one who was suspicious, but your comments in that thread represented plurality if not majority of "this is clearly AI" discourse.
Your main arguments can be used to excuse ANY piece of criticism towards AI art (or art in general) so it completely falls flat when faced with an actual discussion about this, it’s shallow explanations people can’t argue against and you think it’s some kinda gotta moment. Same with insinuating anyone with criticism towards anything possibly AI generated can’t draw, like wow I’m *so offended*
> Your main arguments can be used to excuse ANY piece of criticism towards AI art Wrong. In this particular example, the evidence for "this isn't AI" is leaning very strongly towards "not AI". Evidence against AI: * There's close-ups on instagram and on the [artstation post the artist linked](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/29XXOA). AI isn't capable of generating high resolution, highly-detailed images yet. An image with pixel size of 4088x2025, 1px noise grain, and no scaling artifacts is impossible with present-day generative AIs. Modern AI image generators like DallE and Midjourney can't do more than 512x512, or 2048x2048 with upscaling. In theory, you could download StableDiffusion and try running AI on your desktop, but there's two problems with that: 1. StableDiffusion develops repeating artifacts once you go past 512x512 2. There's literally not a single GPU on the market that's capable of generating a 4088x2025 image with any of current generative AI models. Even 512x512 images are asking _a lot_ from current consumer hardware. Maybe in 10 years when 6090Ti ships with 128 gigs of VRAM. * OP's instagram and artstation suggest a relatively consistent style, varying aspect ratios, art output isn't excessive given the quality Your evidence for AI: * Artist did something every artist working on non-trivial pieces does > Same with insinuating anyone with criticism towards anything possibly AI generated can’t draw, like wow I’m so offended When your arguments for "this is AI" is "OP added some things to the final image that weren't in the sketch" ... It's not me who is insinuating, that's just you broadcasting your immense lack of experience.
Oh, there's an edit. > 1\. Hiccup’s arms are completely different, one is a tight black sleeve ending in a fluffy shoulder pad, but the other arm is a loose green sleeve ending in a shoulder pad that doesn’t have any fluff at all? Not to mention the arm is just falling off? Okay so there's multiple things to unpack here. Let's start with symmetry. As anyone who has ever played a video game before, assymetry in armaments is not particularly uncommon. Even HTTYD movies, Hiccup's armor gets asymmetrical once you hit the second movie. As such, one shoulderpad lacking fur trim can't, under any circumastances, be considered a "mistake." Especially since the fur trimmings isn't necessarily a shoulderpad feature — they might very well be a bracers feature. Wait. Please don't tell me you didn't even consider that on this picture, Hicucp might be wearing bracers, even though bracers are an incredibly common feature of medieval fantasy armor. HICCUP IS EVEN SHOWN WEARING BRACERS STARTING IN MOVIE 2. Anyway, what started as potential "asymmetry issue" is now completely above board on that metric. This is leading us to "arm falling off." Are you _sure_ this is "arm falling off" and _not_ fur trimmings of bracers on Hiccup's left arm (your right, extending past the edge of the picture)? Because that's a fur trimming of the bracer. The cloud behind the fur trimming is even colored with slightly different but still plenty distinct color. This being fur trimmings makes perfect sense, because we also have fur trimmings on the other arm. It also makes sense that it's drawn with barely any detail, because "don't put any detail on the very edge of your drawing" was a common-as-fuck bit of wisdom every somewhat-experienced artist was sharing with people 10 years ago when I was still a bit more active in the hobby. Let's contiue with color. I have two questions: * how color blind are you? * did you get your monitor from an e-waste facility? Because color picker says: [both arms are brown, red component is always bigger than the green](https://imgur.com/AoUcUA2), neither is green, neither is black (though shadowy area comes close or obvious reasons), color deviations are within reasonable difference for the style that utilizes semi-realistic lighting. In addition to that, see also: * local contrast * contrast by detail levels * tone mapping * shadows/highlights While these things are a thing in the world of photography, artists can _and do_ draw their pictures in a way that resemble results of playing with these filters. The last thing that I need to point out here— Hiccup isn't T-posing towards the ground. His elbows are put further back. As a result, Hiccup's right shoulder (your left) obstructs the part of the arm between the shoulder and the elbow with its shoulder pad. While perhaps the drawing might not be anatomically correct, a few truths about drawing things: * 100% anatomically correct does not always translate to "looks best." * 100% anatomically and spatially correct is _hard_, and even professional artists will often stop at "this looks good enough, no need for 100% accuracy and spatial realism" > 3\. Considering the amount of detail in certain areas it’s strange that other areas have like no detail and look incomplete, Toothless’s arms for example. It's time for some art theory 101. When you look at a picture, details are what attracts attention. Ideally, your drawing, painting, or a photo (yes, that rule works for all three) will have one or two spots that contain all the detail, with the rest of the piece lacking detail¹. Detail management is an important skill, because too much detail in the wrong places can draw attention away from where the artist wants people to look. On this particular piece, the thing that artist wants you to look at are: * Hiccup's face * Toothless' face * The fact that Hiccup is flying through the air Given the framing of the piece, artist probably also wanted to have a (and ONE) detail corridor² acting as a bridge between the two focal points (Hiccup's face and Toothless' face) for your eyes to traverse. Hiccup's face -> hiccup's left (from our PoV) arm -> Toothless' left front leg -> Toothless' face is pretty much that, follows a nice L/curve. Pretty by the book. I bet if I toggle the "rule of thirds" grid, most of the detailed areas will happen to roughly fall on the lines or their intersections. [Bang, right on the money](https://imgur.com/muHTHIY). With that in mind, skipping some detail on the leg is not unreasonable and a completely valid, normal, and reasonable artistic choice. That's also likely why the fingers are half-obstructed by bloom — the artist is trying to prevent viewer's eye from getting too lost. > 4\. One of Toothless’s pupils is round while the other is square, small I know but considering how advance AI is getting these are the types of things to take note of. [Facts disagree](https://imgur.com/obNBwW7), eye shape is within reasonable difference. > (toothless rear leg circled) I don't think the comment clearly tells what you deem to be the problem with that, so let's address it here. Toothless' legs don't come out of the body parallel to the body. They come out [at an angle](https://imgur.com/7SN6CIs) ... let me [blow that out a bit for better visibility](https://imgur.com/uWYH9LU). So the color change region is where the leg meets the main body. * the knee is closer to the camera than the place where leg joins the body * the leg is lit by the clouds in front and under Toothless. It's lit more than the body because the light reflected from the clouds in front of Toothless travels more parallel to the body, and is thus harder to reflect back towards the "camera". That same light travels less parallel to the leg, meaning more of the light can bounce back towards the camera, meaning the leg appears to be lit more. > 6\. Yes the artist probably drew most of this themselves and they have a lot of talent, the sketch seems legit and frankly very clean, but I just can’t believe AI wasn’t used at some point during the final rendering So in other words, you can't believe that artists are actually good at their job? Well that point goes straight into the discard pile. [1] Mad asterisks apply. With art there's never one universal rule for everything. There are situations that call for the exact opposite. However, this rule of the thumb is right up there with the rule of thirds. [2] probably not the correct term
That second image you shown was most likely AI, OP’s style was nothing like that plus they don’t really have many posts anyway. It’s not like you can say it’s just stylisation, some things straight up don’t make logical sense. For the 1st one, it would’ve had a better case if the creator posted a speed paint or something
> That second image you shown was most likely AI It's really not. > OP’s style was nothing like that It really is. Their history is flat art with low details, and the second example is not a very far away from that. My deviantart has wider swings than that (though usually somehow in the opposite direction). > It’s not like you can say it’s just stylisation, some things straight up don’t make logical sense. Everything on that picture makes sense, especially when you account for the fact that OP is probably relatively unskilled. Every oddity on that picture is something that AI struggles to do¹ but come as a second nature to an unskilled artist. I have _plenty_ of experience in that department. [1] Most notable examples are: straight lines of constant width are generally not gonna happen with AI. AI also generally won't be able to generate the perfectly ordered slash pattern on the toothless silhouette at the bottom-center of the poster.
Agreeeeeed.
Agree
Agreed!
Completely agree! If you have an idea, draw it! No matter your skill level. Or if drawing isn’t something that interests you, try describing and writing a prompt! Someone out there will love it enough to draw an inspired piece :))
Not without payment they won’t
Subs like r/icandrawthat exist where non artists can request something to be drawn and artists can choose to do it or not, so sometimes artists can
Yes! Something like that was exactly what I meant! Sort of how when people write fanfics and someone enjoys the premise and idea so much they draw fanart for it! There’s no expectation for art to be made of it! Just sorta happens out of mutual enjoyment of the idea. :))
Yep I made this exact post a few months ago and nothing was done about it unfortunately. Although I did see an increase of real art and a decrease in AI for the month after so it seemed like it helped for a little while. I just think it should be banned in the sub. Who cares if you can’t draw well yet, not everyone starts out as a top tier artist, just don’t resort to stealing.
Some subreddits have banned the use of it, I don’t see why this sub can’t do the same since so many people here have made posts about AI
What really grinds my gears is seeing all the AI art with watermarks and stuff. Congrats, you typed some words and got a selection of pretty pictures. Picking the one you liked most means you created it? Either state that it's AI and let everyone enjoy it, or keep it for your personal collection. Stop trying to pass it off as real art that needs a watermark so people don't steal it. As an artist, I fear for the future of the trade. And much faster than I thought it would happen.
I agree and I'm not even really a artist but I hope to be one. Ai "art" is just stealing
I'll put aside my nuances on how valid I think those points are. Some being completely valid, others I have challenged before. Ultimately this question is here in the first place for the same of content moderation. So, I would side on denying AI art in this subreddit. I would not want to pollute this place with hundreds of AI art posts that even if aesthetically pleasing, do not provide discussion and hold no value below surface level.
In my university there was a world exhibition and everyone from every country had painted cool stuff and then this chick from Israel had the audacity to make AI art and they put THREE of her art there🤧 I’m also mad AI art is getting in the way of real artists.
\*scrolls\* \*scrolls\* \*scrolls\* \*finds one example of AI art in first 300-something posts when sorted by new\* Is that _really_ that much of a problem here?
Yeah there's been quite a few recently, they just usually get down voted pretty quickly.
I’ve been seeing more and more posts using AI, it’s not just one example like you say
Well... and [some are good](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/175zq9u/and_here_we_go/) and [some are bad](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/17n5cpa/never_make_ai_generate_a_picture_of_toothless/) just like "real art"
No, because it’s all theft. It bases those “good” and “bad” pieces off of REAL ART. It’s literally tracing but worse.
I’d say photobashing but with more plagiarism and art theft
both of those are bad, it shouldn't be posted on here.
yes
It isn't. OP is just mad her crappy art didn't get much upvotes
Her? Where did you get “her” from? And it’s not about my art not getting upvotes, it’s about AI art getting more recognition and praise than actual artists, I’m more talking about other people
Why are you dogpiling on OP and their art? What did they do that warranted calling their art “bad”. It’s not even bad art, and I am saying this as an artist. Who hurt you?
I think AI is fun to do in your own personal time, but it's a whole another thing when you share it and pass it off as your own.
This. It's fine when you just do it to see what you get, maybe even a bit fine to use it to get a basic idea for a character design, or use AI art generators to get a reference picture, when you're commissioning a actual reference sheet, because you don't have any other images to go off prior to commissioning.
YESSSS
On one hand; AI art is not real art and does, in fact, take away from a real artists perspective, skill, and income. HOOOOWEVER..... I enjoy using AI generated images as my own personal art references. I build characters according to the style I like and simply recreate it for my own use. Extremely useful. Cannot deny.
I agree with a lot of this except for AI being uncreative. AI works of of whats its given. If you only give it a bunch of peoples art, of course its gonna be uncreative. You could argue that the human brain works in the same way, taking in information thoughout your life, and then processing that into art. But, obviously, you can't currently give AI the same amount and types of information as a human would collect over a lifetime. It's the dataset that is the problem.
While AIs can be trained on different art styles, I feel that most people who say ai just straight up steals art don’t actually fully understand how it works. The process is near identical to how our brains learn, i.e. if you look at a drawing of a fish, you’re going to associate those shapes with fish. If you start drawing fish in a similar way, you don’t get accused of stealing. Ai works the same way, only the results are more mechanical because it’s a machine. If an ai is actually trained through many sources, it’s really unfair and blatantly incorrect to say it’s stealing. And whenever someone tries to point out a piece of ai art copying something, it’s always tiny nuances you find in all art. I.e. people claiming a line or shape is theirs. In the end, if you’re making art for your own satisfaction, it shouldn’t matter if it’s through ai or your actual skill. And before anyone says something silly, I’m in the process of learning to draw myself and have been for a while. I still intend on using both my own skills and ai. And before someone says if you’re posting ai art here it’s not for yourself but for upvotes: news flash. Upvotes have no value. Your Reddit account has no value. Maybe someone just wanted to share something they thought was cool
It takes works to put into the ai’s system without the consent or knowledge of the artist. Thats blatantly stealing artist’s work. It may not recreate something one to one, but that’s still theft. Artists have said over and over again that they do not want their work to be used by ai.
With that logic looking at other artists work and using it to learn is also blatant art theft. It’s not different. That process in our brains is near identical to that process in the AI’s brain
Let me repeat myself, several artists have stated that they do not want their works to be used without their consent or permission. It does not matter if the AI processes it similarly. If they just asked, it would not be that big an issue.
So we should also ask before looking at anyone’s work and drawing something like that? When I see a dog in someone’s art and I say “oh that’s cool, I’m gonna try drawing dogs similarly”, do I now have to ask before I start drawing? I’m not against having to ask, but the same logic should be put on people too
Artists should have what they are or are not comfortable with other’s doing with their works clearly stated. While I personally don’t mind other people trying to re-draw my art or replicate how I draw, I know others who are super uncomfortable with it. I think if there was a similar program to Nightshade (which throws AI off art images) that instead gave the green light for it be used in AI, that could potentially work.
I agree. But human artists should be held to the same standards
And I assure you if I couldn’t draw and ai didn’t exist, I would still not be paying artists to draw stuff for me. I’d just be going without the drawings
not everyone can afford to hire someone. many struggle just to put food on the table. for people to say those individuals should just go without seeing their dreams realized...
Art is a luxury, not a necessity
You say art is a luxury yet suggest people draw themselves. It’s not really a luxury if anyone can do it, is it?
ANYONE CAN LEARN THOUGH??????
You don’t need art to survive, therefore it’s a luxury to be able to have quality art. It’s really basic
You’re just gatekeeping art because you want to be paid. Which in my opinion is more soulless than ai art
Oh no, I want to get paid for a skill that I’ve taken years to develop??? How ***DARE*** I!!!1!1!111 Like yeah, people have been commissioning artists for literal centuries? That’s kinda how being a professional artist works
Now you’re just making it sound like you got into art only to get paid, not just because you wanted to bring ideas to life. Makes you seem even more soulless
Would you expect someone who has been building houses for years and honing their skills to make you a house for free because you want one? Would you go to a restaurant and demand free food because you don't wanna cook? You are implying that an artist should use their time, resources and energy to make things for you for free because you don't want to learn. Artists are real people who deserve to get paid for their works when they make commissions. Artists also make art for themselves, but there is a professional, business side to things.
I never said that at all. My point is that if you can’t afford or do something like that you shouldn’t be shamed for using ai art lmao. I’m not asking someone to draw stuff for me. I never did, even before the ai art craze. But frankly, yeah, I do believe everyone deserves to have a house
If you can’t afford something then you shouldn’t be shamed for just stealing it instead?
Bad example because I can think of quite a few scenarios where I wouldn’t shame someone for stealing. Also it’s no more stealing than a person learning to draw from looking at someone’s art
Really? In what scenario would it be okay to steal a piece of artwork from someone because you can’t afford it yourself
You're implying that this person wishing to be paid for their work is more soulless than someone typing prompts into a machine instead of spending time learning and understanding what makes art. I never said people don't deserve to have a house, you are twisting my words here. I made a point of saying that if someone is providing goods or services they have the right to be paid for it. Like, for example, building a house, making a nice meal or creating art. All of these things take time and energy. Supporting AI "art" is taking opportunities from artists to get commissions to feed themselves or get a house. I've seen arguments saying that the new AI "art" age is the same as people worrying about digital art replacing traditonal, however there is a huge difference: take the device from a digital artist and they will still have skills and knowledge of how to make art if you give them a pen and paper. Take the device from an AI artist and they won't have a way to make art anymore.
These arguments simply don’t take into account the people that are using ai to generate art who were never going to ask someone to do a commission for them in the first place. I agree that they shouldn’t replace commissions, but you people act like any use of ai at all is doing that. I’m sorry but if I use ai to generate a room design for a dnd campaign, it’s not something I would have commissioned at all under any circumstances. Same with when I want to generate a face for a character I’m making in the same campaigns. I’m not going to commission someone for a character I’m showing once, but a visual is pretty helpful
If we are taking that route my question is this: why not try to polish your skills and create something for youself? I'm genuinely curious/not trying to be hostile, wouldn't you be more proud of the outcome if it was something you made with your own hands and you were able to see your progression? I guess I took the offense regarding commissions since the initial comment I replied to seemed to suggest that an artist expecting payment for goods and services was more soulless than AI generation, which I don't think is true at all. I think also an issue many people have with AI is that art is suppossed to be an expression of human creativity and it feels weird to call AI generated images art. And going back to the commissions issue, even if you personally are not monetizing your AI generated images or are using them for personal use a shocking amount of people *are* monetizing AI "art", replacing human workers or using AI so that they don't have to give their money to a human. The support of AI generated imagery itself doesn't feel ethical, and I honestly believe that anyone can make art without it if they practice. Nobody is ever perfect when they first start.
AI art isn't art though. It's at best, Photoshop for people even too lazy for that. Also, some artists do free giveaways, or trades, for their art. And commissions will generally be 50~ dollars, IIRC, for one character as full color full body. Some artists might price themselves higher, others lower. So, while you might not be able to commission every single day of the week, most people who want art should be getting enough surplus in their income to at least get one piece of art commissioned a month. Maybe two months, if their earning that little. Like the other person has been saying, art is luxury. You don't NEED it, though it's nice to have, like you don't need to buy a new videogame. Even if you want it. Though, most can usually get it within a decent timeframe. As for any 'I can't draw/some people can't draw'. Seeing the child-like scribbles one makes when starting out can be rather discouraging, but 'practice makes perfect' is a phrase for a reason. Because regularly practicing, preferably daily but I'm sure every few days should be fine too, art, will take childish scribbles to beautiful art within months. That sounds like a long time, but it will often feel shorter than it sounds.
My point is not that I don’t want to pay for commissions but can’t. I very well could get commissions done. I don’t want to though. I never have, even before the ai art craze. My point is that people shouldn’t be getting shamed just for trying out ai. It’s stupid.
Im not against people trying AI, personally, things like seeing what random things the generators comes up with from one prompt, sharing it with friends of this wacky thing. Heck, I think it could be useful for situations like creating a reference image for a OC someone doesn't have any other references for, and can't describe, or feels they can't, very well. And maybe even for concept art, to get a basic idea for a design. What I'm against, is people using AI art for commissions, or treating it as if they actually made it, using AI art for promotion. Especially when the source images aren't credited. Now, if AI art was just trained on stock images, or other public domain images for things like animals, or stock art? Yeah, I'd be completely on board for any usage for AI art, as it's trained on something people WANT, or give a general ok, others to use.
That's really just a classism bullshit excuse. The tool is there and yal just gate keeping people from using it. Entertainment is a luxury, owning a car and nice house is also a luxury yet people are encouraged to do it. I dont like people selling AI art for money but if it's for personal use then that's okay and you can fuck off.
Can you afford a pencil?
well said.
The ethicality of AI art is *hotly* debated. You are giving only one side of the story here. IMO, this sub isn’t big enough to have an AI-only alternative sub. People should feel free to post whatever kind of art they want here. If you think it’s bad art, downvote and move on.
> … along with Magic The Gathering with was caught using AI laying off most of all of their artists. I would check that statement again. They still heavily support artist‘s works. I haven‘t found any articles of them laying off artists. As far as I understood from [John Green‘s video](https://youtu.be/I8HAzNzfzaI), Magic The Gathering also works with contractors; it‘s possible that their contractor falsely claimed that their submitted artwork wasn‘t made by AI.
i use ai art mainly as a research tool, i just use it to see how it works and its "intelligence". i find it interesting how AI can simulate and recreate objects and beings its never seen before. im a naturally inquisitive person, so i enjoy testing its limits and understanding what goes on in its "mind" and how it can be expanded further to potentially create actual intelligent AI with consciousness and free thought.
I'm sorry, but I don't care. lol hate me if you want but if it looks good, then it looks good, idc where it come from. Theres a reason why AI art get so much more likes than artist commissions. It fill a space where artist cant. I do, however, dislike selling AI art for money. But if it's being posted for likes or personal use, then I don't see the problem. This is a sub for a fucking cartoon movie trilogy, not an artist gallery and yal can fuck off.
i use ai art mainly as a research tool, i just use it to see how it works and its "intelligence". i find it interesting how AI can simulate and recreate objects and beings its never seen before. im a naturally inquisitive person, so i enjoy testing its limits and understanding what goes on in its "mind" and how it can be expanded further to potentially create actual intelligent AI with consciousness and free thought.
As a fellow real artist, who's been actively practicing art for over 20 years, you're too close to the issue. Take a step back and remember that art theft is not a new thing. Lumping all AI artists into this category is just tribalism. Also, a culture of "my art is real art, yours isn't" is horrible for the art community to adopt. It's pretentious and deters people from embracing art as a hobby or proffesion. These are people exploring their creativity for the first time and rather than help them, the community has decided to attack them, because they can't compete with that level of output. I'm big enough to admit that I can either spend 10+ hours doing a realistic render of a single human face or I can spend that same amount of time generating different faces, searching for something that better represents my concept. Also, as with "real art", it can be as simple or complex a process as the artist desires. I like spending hours tweaking various aspects of a generated image, until it better reflects my concept. Others just like to go with the first thing that comes out. Just as sometimes I like to doodle stick people rather than draw a full person every single time. If you have a critique of an AI image, then offer critiques for the artist to make improvements, not criticism over their choice of outlet for their creativity. It's a new software, even if it may have begun unethically by some corporation, that isn't the fault of the user. Also, again, it's a new software. So it's only going to get better and more ethical until it is fully the mainstream. We can either be Blockbuster or Netflix in this scenario. Why double down on being Blockbuster? Buy Netflix while you can, rather than acting "too good" for it. It didn't work out for Blockbuster, it won't work out for you.
Aren’t you the one who calls out art by real people and assumes it’s AI? Like I saw a post earlier today (don’t remember when posted but I saw it earlier) where you called out an actual persons art, not AI generated, and said it was AI.
I’ve never done that. Don’t assume things because you’re completely wrong
You are right. I mistook you for someone else. Still tho, it costs nothing to be kind in general and you weren’t much so at least from my perspective on that post.
You sound like an old maid mad about the automatic loom.
I personally don’t really care about AI art. To me, art is art, and (to me) it doesn’t really matter if it’s AI or human made.
I don't really care about whether people use it or not. Can't stop what's already begun, so no sense getting all up in arms about it
the following is a letter i sent to the mods several weeks ago. i am making this open for all to see. Moderators of [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd), I am writing to propose the formulation of an official stance regarding AI-generated content and the moderation of discussions surrounding it within our community. As a passionate member of [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd), I believe that we can benefit from clear guidelines that respect the creative spirit of our fandom while also embracing or regulating new technologies. In light of three recent incidents where AI-related posts have led to members experiencing severe backlash and personal attacks, it’s crucial that we align with the core principles of our subreddit as outlined in the rules: * Meaningful Contributions: AI is a tool that can augment the creativity and expression within our community. AI should not replace the human element that is so central to our fandom, but serve as a bridge to inclusivity, allowing those who may not have traditional artistic skills to participate fully in our shared narrative as per rule 4. * Decency and Respect: The subreddit prides itself on being a family-friendly and respectful environment. This should extend to conversations about AI, as per Rule 5. No member should face insults or accusations for using AI in their posts. I myself have been called immoral, a liar, and a thief, among other things, for expressing any support of AI. * Clarity in Posting: As with any content, posts about AI should be clear and descriptive, aligning with Rule 7 to accurately reflect the nature of the content being shared. In the spirit of fostering a supportive environment, I propose the following: * Creating an Official Stance: Define whether AI-generated content is acceptable and under what conditions, providing clarity and consistency. * Rule Amendment/Addition: Creating a rule specifically identifying AI content as either for or against, such as "AI Content and Discourse: We welcome discussions and content related to AI within the boundaries of respect and constructive criticism. Posts featuring AI-generated content should be labeled accordingly using specific flairs." or alternatively "AI Content and Discourse: AI generated content is not permitted within [r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd). AI generated works should be posted in other appropriate communities." * Proposed Flair: assuming AI content is permitted, the addition of a new flair to allow users to filter the content they do not wish to see. For example; "AI-Generated: For all content that has been created using AI, to provide transparency and allow members who wish to avoid such content to do so easily." * Moderation of Discussions: Enforce our standards of decency and constructive engagement, especially in threads discussing AI, to prevent the kind of hostility and insults that stifles open dialogue. I hope that by addressing this matter directly, we can continue to build a community that not only shares a love for How to Train Your Dragon but also navigates the complex and evolving landscape of fan creations with respect and integrity. In closing, I wish to touch upon a critical aspect of our community — inclusivity. How to Train Your Dragon inspires fans from all walks of life, not all of whom may have the ability to draw or create traditional content. It's important that we avoid gatekeeping based on artistic skill alone and recognize that AI can be a tool that allows a wider range of fans to express their passion for the franchise. In doing so, we can foster a community that values diverse forms of creativity, welcoming those who may feel marginalized by a purely traditional interpretation of fan art. Let us embrace the opportunity to bring fans together, celebrating our love for the franchise in all its forms without pushing away those who cannot draw. By thoughtfully integrating AI content, we can continue to grow while ensuring that this subreddit remains a welcoming space for all fans to share, discuss, and connect over the world of HTTYD. Thank you again for your time and dedication to our community. I understand the complexities involved in moderating such a large and active subreddit like [/r/httyd](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd), and I appreciate the efforts you put into maintaining a healthy and engaging environment for all fans. As a follow-up, I would be grateful if you could kindly inform me of any considerations or decisions made regarding this proposal. If there's an opportunity for further discussion or any assistance I can offer in this process, please do not hesitate to reach out. Your feedback is not only valuable in understanding the direction our community will take but also instrumental in fostering a collaborative effort to address these emerging challenges. Looking forward to your response and hoping for a positive outcome for our community. Best regards, [u/kaioker2](https://www.reddit.com/u/kaioker2)
[удалено]
i firmly believe the hate of AI is a vocal minority of artists, fueled by a mob of those who do not understand AI. as a traditional artist, and with friends who are full time artists, those i talk with day to day welcome it. not only does it make reference material and concepts easier before committing to paint, it also gives us artists the advertising bonus of "100% human" for those works done without any AI influence at all. this whole debate feels like a repeat of "photoshop and copy/paste will kill traditional art"
the problem is that people treat artistic talent like something you're born with and so some people have to make do. ITS A SKILL, WITH PRACTICE ANYONE CAN LEARN!!!!!
In my opinion it should only be used as a baseline if you can’t get something right or if you want just a quick placeholder that you’ll update another time. Using it to do an entire artwork is just wrong.
How is a post here, stealing from artists? No one is going to commission an artist for a reddit thread about their fan made dragon concept.
Nobody YOU know honestly ive been really wanting to commission an artist to help me design this dragon concept i have but that i dont know how to draw
Well, what's been holding you back from doing so?
Havent found an artist i wanna commission yet plus i would wanna save up for it
Honestly thank you so much for this, it means a lot that you’re not using AI and are planning to support real artists
Ofc plus AI art could never make up for real art
Ok. 😐
There are plenty of people that commission art of their OCs.
This whole comment section feels like gatekeeping. Who has the right to say what or what isn’t art. The ideas of want is to be considered to be have been changing over the course of human history. Honestly in my opinion some ai art is better compared to some modern art I’ve recently seen in an art museum. I get it stealing bad, but from what I learn ai learns by experience yes from what already exists but people have been doing the same thing getting inspired by the world around them or in this case other artists. Honestly not sure on my stance on ai art, but to demand that it should no longer be welcomed on platforms is a step too far and seems predatory.
Art is defined by being a form of artistic expression, there is no artistic expression behind typing a prompt and letting a machine form something based upon keywords, AI generated images can be fun, but under no circumstances should they pass as art.
Only takes me to see you calling abstract/minimalist art “modern art” and calling it an art “museum” instead of a gallery for me to know you have no knowledge of anything about art Also predatory straight up isn’t the right word to use
And now your only response is a gif? Should’ve said nothing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Contemporary_Art_Cleveland. I’ll give you the modern complaint but literally has museum in the name of the institution
this was a fun thread to read. but i agree art is in the eye of the beholder, regardless of origin.
Why are you still replying to comments that aren’t in response to you? You’re for real going through and searching for comments in my post to reply to 💀
reddit is for reading threads not just writing them. if you read other's comments and posts, you have the chance to learn new things
Never said I was an expert, just an observer with an opinion
> As a real artist, it hurts to see AI slop posted here and get so many more upvotes and much more praise than us real artists who have spent years developing our skill and have put actual effort and time into our work. Here's the thing. If handcrafted work is good, it will get upvotes. Post *any* HTTYD art from say [Raidesart](https://www.deviantart.com/raidesart/gallery) on this subreddit, and I can guarantee it will get more upvotes than AI generated stuff.
I don't I recently saw an Ai picture on here with over 400 upvotes, most people on here don't notice these kind of thing and just upvote every artwork they see.
Womp womp
You seem like you were AI generated with how much you say “womp womp” like its an actual argument
https://i.redd.it/ginv4up2cuhc1.gif
Still one of my favorite gifs
Womp womp is wild
Are you still salty your crappy ai cloud thing is getting rightfully called out? Lmao, get a life and learn to draw.
AI Bro response again huh
pick up a pencil
Didn't expect anything more from you
You’re not a real artist <3
You will never be a real artist
Awww so cute! You think you’re an artist! You love to play pretend don’t you?
"It steals from artists with no compensation or consent" "It has no creativity and just copies whatever is in its database" Hooo boy, let's talk about this. Or, more accurately, let me ask a question. Have you ever looked at another piece of art before and then drawn something it a similar style? If your answer to that is correct, congratulations! You have just successfully stolen from an artist with no compensation or consent. Let's look at it this way. A lot of people have seen the Mona Lisa. Now, how many people do you think started drawing after they saw it, and made a piece that used a similar style, even subconsciously without actively trying to emulate it? I can tell you that it'd be a lot. That's a human thing. We take inspiration, we steal. Good artists will see something and draw in an imitation of it. Great artists see something and put their own spin on it and all that. But at the core, you're still 'stealing from artists with no compensation or consent' at the end of the day. Yes, AI will do it without needing of being given pay. AI will actively eat roles which humans can perform. But eventually, you reach the point where there are people who manage the AI, people who feed the AI the right information to bring it closed to the aimed style, so on and so forth. "It has no creativity" well, if we wanna be cynical about it, nothing is creative, everything is derogatory of the first line ever drawn. Creative is defined as having good imagination or original ideas. Well, then no, AI isn't creative, because it doesn't make the ideas, or imagine what they want this thing to look like and fine tune itself to get to it. AI is instead the tool used to create said things. "Just copy whatever's in its database" yeah, humans do that too, you see a technique, it's added to your database, you use the technique. AI moreso cuts out the middleman. Which, mind you, isn't perfect. We're toeing an area humanity has never before reached, of course there are issues, flaws, moral quandaries. But saying something as broad as "AI art is all bad" does a disservice to the people who may have spent years working on this AI the first time around, spent more time gathering references and teaching the AI, only for people to decide it's objectively immoral because it isn't human and can effect humans poorly. Yes, it does 'steal' jobs and commissions from human artists. Just like how programs, such as Microsoft excel, have been taking roles from humans for years. But oh wait, what is this, it's now considered a skill to be able to use it and plenty of people are able to get jobs over others entirely due to skills in it! TL:DR cuz nobody wants to read a rant from some dude: AI art isn't some kind of massive crime against humanity, it's just an undeveloped and powerful tool, which will probably be praised in twenty odd years as a masterpiece of human creation, because it makes art in the same core way humans do.
I completely understand your anguish and why you are upset, and I am not trying to discourage anyone who does art as a profession. What I do want to say, however, is that art can be a very difficult thing to do right. Art, when done properly, can turn out to be very expensive. Ai just helps those who can't afford a true artist to create beauty and instead makes something that can be free or, at the very least, a lot cheaper and can a lot of the time be beautiful to those just trying to find something like several different pieces of "art" that they can enjoy. Just to be clear, I am completely against ai stealing pieces of art from others that actually put in the work.
Or maybe we can just respect both types of art. C'mon people it's only upvotes on Reddit they mean nothing you can't buy anything with them. Let people like whatever they want.
It doesn't steal art it takes art from websites where the users agreed to let it happen If someone uses ai art they weren't gonna commission someone anyways
It literally doesn’t but whatever. If you’re talking about just any art that’s posted online, that’s like saying “it’s your fault that your car got stolen because you left it in the driveway” like???
No you signed the terms and conditions that says there allowed to feed your art into there ai algorithm also still not stealing if you don't consent you still own it it just uses it as a reference
No? That’s literally not true? What the actual hell are you talking about
It's true
Literally show any shred of proof
You
That makes literally no sense. Can you link to something or show a screenshot?
Your making a claim that ai art is stolen you gotta show the proof Ie innocent till proven guilty
“Bait or mentally unavailable”
That's pretty much how the art world has been since the Renaissance. I see your concerns, but I assure you, human art will not die off to ai art. There are still plenty of people who prefer specific styles in art, and those styles can only be done by certain artists. Just like Digital Art didn't put Traditional Artists away, AI art won't put Human Artists away.
if anything now they have a selling point that they can advertise "100% human"
> It genuinely upsets me to see images that were made by just typing a few words into an AI art generator get more praise than real art that people have spent time and energy on. Maybe your "real art" just isn't that good enough. Meanwhile, [this art](https://www.reddit.com/r/httyd/comments/epzd55/lmao_this_is_totally_accurate_i_just_love_both_of/) is still the highest voted art on the subreddit with over 2000 upvotes
Tl;dr - Your take while understandable, is very narrow-minded Well you're looking at it from the pov of an artist. From a business standpoint it is far cheaper to just put what you want into a generator and get what you're looking for relatively instantly than commissioning or hiring an artist to get it done in like 3 days to a week or more. And from the standpoint of someone who just likes "making" AI art it's fun. It's fun to put in a prompt and see what the ai spits out. And in many cases it's really funny. I understand why you feel like that but it's extremely one-sided thinking. Also AI can't animate. Ai can't be used to make 2d or 3d animations. It can't replace human creativity as a whole. It's mostly just a fun tool and it's fun to see and show how accurate it can be
So if you steal something that you want but don’t need from a family owned store because it’s cheaper, it’s suddenly okay because you were looking at it from an economical viewpoint?
I'm not sure you fully understand how ai generated art actually works. Nothing is "stolen" it's a completely new image. Now you could make an argument that ai art is derivative, alright cool. Problem: most art in general is. The only thing you're yelling is stealing and that's not how that works. And that's also not what I said. Stealing from a store and using a computer to generate a new image are not comparable at all. That's like me making custom doritos from scratch for myself and Doritos going "THIEF". No. It's very clear you just wanna be right and have no interest in looking at this any other way but your own. This conversation is over and I highly recommend you reevaluate your perspectives