discussion About IA generated art

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

Have you ever looked in that field? Aside from that type of photography being mindnumblingy dull, the problem is that every idiot with a DSLR thinks they can make pictures. So if you are even remotely serious about this stuff, it's hard to find jobs that are somewhat interesting and/or pay decent.

You're not going to hire your cousin fred to do your wedding photos. The actual Wedding photos are always done by professionals who have $10,000+ cameras and lens. Those one-time events are never going to be replaced by some idiot with a cameraphone, let alone a point-and-shoot. AI is not going to create your wedding photos for you after you've already had the wedding.

 

I'll repeat again. "Cameras" replaced "paintings", and then in turn digital still cameras replaced film cameras and now people just take dozens of photos at once instead of trying to conserve film and setup the shot perfectly. DSLR's are so good now that the the photographer can select which photos are good, and select from various exposure levels that the camera takes at the same time. Auto-focus has been a thing for decades.

 

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

Sure there are exceptions, like there are always, but the point is that the field itself is extremely tough.

 

Low effort jobs? Have you seen the AI stuff? Midjourney Showcase

That's not low effort, if you can do that as a person, you are absolutely talented.

Look up Sakimichan. Humans can do stuff like that, but stuff like that is not generally what people are willing to pay money for. 

 

There is a wide swath of art styles, and only a limited number of artists out there that can do those styles. If the AI learns how to do it, that just gives the artist a way to refuse work they don't want to do, and if nobody wants to do thing X in style Y, they have the option of trying to get the AI to do it. But AI is not creative. At worst, it's plagiarism, if the AI was over-trained on a style and can replicate parts of the source material because the AI doesn't learn what parts of the style are the subject, and what parts of the style are the artists signature flourishes.

 

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

As for animation, yeah I don't know where that is at now, but that would create consistency issues and so many other things, so that's obviously not what we should be comparing it to.

 

It feels like you are either comparing it with a different field (3D and animation), or you are lagging behind with what technology can do these days.

No, I'm right on the money. The problem is people, like people who aren't even remotely interested in this stuff in the first place, get that uncanny valley feeling from looking at the over-rendered AI-generated artwork and immediately fear it. Artists go "oh no, I'm going to be put out of a job", which is not going to happen.

 

Technology in general only ever eliminates boring, repetitive, stressful, accident-prone jobs. It has not once replaced a creative job.

 

Take for example computer animation. Did 3D animation like that of Pixar replace 2D animation? Nope.  Disney stopped doing 2D films because the people in charge of Disney wanted to stop doing them. And if you scratch below the surface it was all about money.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to have AI figure out how to do all the in-betweens in animation, so you only have to draw the keyframes? Because that's certainly a direction we can head with AI artwork. Likewise, AI can learn the "house style" better than outsourcers will. So again, that's just pointing directly at "humans being replaced" that were already being replaced, they were just being replaced by cheaper humans somewhere else.

 

 

[Neroon]

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You're not going to hire your cousin fred to do your wedding photos. The actual Wedding photos are always done by professionals who have $10,000+ cameras and lens. Those one-time events are never going to be replaced by some idiot with a cameraphone, let alone a point-and-shoot. AI is not going to create your wedding photos for you after you've already had the wedding.

 

I'll repeat again. "Cameras" replaced "paintings", and then in turn digital still cameras replaced film cameras and now people just take dozens of photos at once instead of trying to conserve film and setup the shot perfectly. DSLR's are so good now that the the photographer can select which photos are good, and select from various exposure levels that the camera takes at the same time. Auto-focus has been a thing for decades.

 

Look up Sakimichan. Humans can do stuff like that, but stuff like that is not generally what people are willing to pay money for. 

 

There is a wide swath of art styles, and only a limited number of artists out there that can do those styles. If the AI learns how to do it, that just gives the artist a way to refuse work they don't want to do, and if nobody wants to do thing X in style Y, they have the option of trying to get the AI to do it. But AI is not creative. At worst, it's plagiarism, if the AI was over-trained on a style and can replicate parts of the source material because the AI doesn't learn what parts of the style are the subject, and what parts of the style are the artists signature flourishes.

 

No, I'm right on the money. The problem is people, like people who aren't even remotely interested in this stuff in the first place, get that uncanny valley feeling from looking at the over-rendered AI-generated artwork and immediately fear it. Artists go "oh no, I'm going to be put out of a job", which is not going to happen.

 

Technology in general only ever eliminates boring, repetitive, stressful, accident-prone jobs. It has not once replaced a creative job.

 

Take for example computer animation. Did 3D animation like that of Pixar replace 2D animation? Nope.  Disney stopped doing 2D films because the people in charge of Disney wanted to stop doing them. And if you scratch below the surface it was all about money.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to have AI figure out how to do all the in-betweens in animation, so you only have to draw the keyframes? Because that's certainly a direction we can head with AI artwork. Likewise, AI can learn the "house style" better than outsourcers will. So again, that's just pointing directly at "humans being replaced" that were already being replaced, they were just being replaced by cheaper humans somewhere else.

 

 

You're would hire someone with proper gear (and more importantly, skill and experience), but most don't.

 

This gets me back to my point yet again. It's hard to break through with it, because there are so many cheap alternatives, and while you don't consider them alternatives, so many do, and that's what matters.

Trust me as someone who's done my fair share of photography, I can spot a shitty photographer from a mile away, yet most wedding pictures I see, are shit.

As for it not being replaced by point and shoots or camera phones... well duh.. I clearly wrote DSLR. So no clue where that argument comes from.

 

AI isn't creative... well you could argue what creativity is. You call it plagiarism, but guess what, humans do that all the time, they just call it 'inspiration'.

 

You are clearly set on 1 way of thinking, you are absolutely refusing any impact on this, and you think humans are so special that AI can't do anything like it. The proof is out there that clearly shows you are wrong, including the link I offered, but again you don't care. You are right, everyone else is wrong.

Good luck discussing this with other people, I can't be bothered with discussions when someone can only think in black or white.

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

 

 

AI isn't creative... well you could argue what creativity is. You call it plagiarism, but guess what, humans do that all the time, they just call it 'inspiration'.

You clearly haven't read anything I've posted on AI in the forum. That is MY argument that AI isn't creative. It can't be, it only learns how to copy, it does not possess any means of interpreting it, let alone putting it's own spin on it, because it's ultimately chooses not to. AI training always chooses the easiest/laziest strategy.

 

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

You are clearly set on 1 way of thinking, you are absolutely refusing any impact on this, and you think humans are so special that AI can't do anything like it. The proof is out there that clearly shows you are wrong, including the link I offered, but again you don't care. You are right, everyone else is wrong.

Good luck discussing this with other people, I can't be bothered with discussions when someone can only think in black or white.

You've just not read the thread.

[Nystemy]

To be fair, this thread were a rollercoaster to read.

 

But to get to the subject at hand. Is AI generated art good or bad for artists?

To a degree, no.

 

The well known artists of the world frankly won't be affected. Since most of the art industry don't often care about the work itself, but rather what the artist reflects with it. _{(grossly oversimplifying here, but just listen to a few art critics mumble for hours about the emotions behind the artists approach to a given piece and suddenly one might wonder if one even looks at the same picture.)}

 

Lesser known artists partly gets negatively affected, since a lot of new artists are judged more heavily on the art piece itself. But even here a lot of other qualities surrounding the work also plays a part in its evaluation as far as the audiences are concerned.

 

What about commissioned works? _{(An artist getting paid to make a work of art to some set of guidelines or contractual bounds.)}

Well, some fields of art won't be affected at all. Since everything isn't about visuals on a canvas.

But for drawn arts the AI can become competitive. But the AI has the downside of generally worse communication compared to a regular person. And configuring the AI to create what one wants to see is partly a challenge in itself, that depending on the goal might be neigh impossible.

 

In regards to source material.

This is debatable.

Sources in the public domain are generally free for AIs to learn on. Copyrighted work however is a legal minefield unless one has permission from the copyright holder. _{(since AIs effectively only mimic their sources.)} However, I can foresee a fair few AI generated pieces of art being made with source material that the "artist" in question don't have the rights to use. The fact that an AI can blend more than one source can make it very hard for individual artists to claim copyright infringement. _{(The idea that "two or more 'infringing' sources makes a legally valid output since it is a mix of many works." is a stance I won't stand behind myself, two or more wrongs don't make a right, and sprinkling in a few rights don't make it correct either. Even if one can technically argue that the human brain works almost the same. A lot of works are very unoriginal.)}

 

Though, I do find it a bit fun that a lot of furries considers AI art more offensive towards the trade than a lot of non furries. And this is honestly expected. Firstly because a lot of furries are artists. Secondly because a lot of furries commissions artists and respect the works made by artists in general. It is a fairly art centric subculture. But here I don't see AI generated art to be competitive in the slightest, at least for the coming years.

 

But to a degree, depending on the art. AI is either fairly competitive against humans, or it is laughably inept. However, AI generated art is more or less only a problem in the digital world. Paint on a canvas is hard for an AI to do in practice. _{(Remember, I said hard, not impossible!)}

 

But in the end.

AI generated art isn't yet on par with a camera.

A camera back in the day gave "Joe average" the ability to take a picture of anything before them. Something that normally required a fairly skilled artist. _{(or actually, a surprising amount of people back in the day were far better at drawing than most people today. So if anything, the camera has made peoples' penmanship worse, similar to how typewriters/computers have made peoples' handwriting atrocious.)}

AI generated artwork has yet to reach the stage of giving Joe average the ability to generate whatever picture they have imagined. But honestly, the service of configuring the AI is a job in itself, but it sure won't aid in the creation of new skilled artists.

 

_{(But as stated, a lot of art isn't as much about the individual piece, but rather a lot more surrounding fluff. Some argue that GPT can just write a story to accompany the art, but that carries no weight. Art to the viewer is often about a bit deeper things, some might see a boring mostly gray building in front of a square, but when one states that the artist drew it back in 1914 and it weren't sufficient for them to join the art school they desired to attend and this were a turning point for why the artist entered into politics instead changes the viewers feelings towards the piece. But that example is an edge case. GPT don't have any ties to real world context for the piece that it writes.)}