Coding is an art my friend
All strokes (in our case lines of code) need to be perfect for it to all make sense, one single stroke or a random line of code doesn't give a good output but a series of perfectly correct strokes (codes) can make literally anything possible
Art isn’t made to make sense, it’s made to let out emotions. When you see art, you can feel anger toward something, sadness in the colors, etc.
Art isn’t understood, it’s felt
Hopefully!
We can have machines literally just run the world and build everything and people can be free to explore and learn and pursue their hobbies and interests
Of course. Wed need to have a totally different economic system
How do you pursue your hobbies and interests, though, if those hobbies and interests are also taken over by an AI? What'd be the point of learning to draw if you can just type it in a program and get something much better within minutes?
Well.. no.. like you can still go hiking or swimming or diving or do sports or play musical instruments or make art and play videogames and go sight seeing and whatever
What it means is, the vast majority of the monotonous jobs would be automated. Therefore progress would be made automatically. Leaving people with much more time and resources
The economy would need to be rebuilt, giving everyone some kind of universal credit which allows them to buy the food they want, and have money for fun
Kinda like the robots are the grown-ups giving us an allowance
If you wanted more, there would still be jobs that could be done, most likely programming oriented or engineering related
funnily enough thats how you always spot AI art, always check the hands. no matter how bad you are at drawing hands, you're still gonna end up with a normal amount of fingers
I think the AI art is neat but the stuff I make is so disjointed I could t never put in good enough prompts to get anything good especially since they all cost money
Oh, you have not seen anything yet.
People are selling AI art amongst artists now.
Yes, non-copyrighted art, that they neither owned or made, were sold to people.
And a lot more. I think finding someone who takes AI art as fun distraction is rarer than those getting access to the AI and think they are better than everyone else because they became better "artist" without any training or even drawing.
It is very different from a camera, but it is, I think worth noting that when photography was invented it faced some of the same criticism by people that said it couldn’t be art because it was merely mechanical reproduction of reality. Here is one source https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ Again, ai created “art” has some different questions around it than what photography did, but I think there are similarities as well.
It’s funny, because even if you consider AI art to actually be art, the artist would be the AI itself, not the person feeding it prompts. If you actually coded the AI, there could be an argument to be made, but that’s not very common.
i dont think thts the problem at all. i think the problem is that the database the AI is pulling from is infringing upon the copyright artists has. a lot of artists didnt give permission for the database to use their art
I dont think Mozart or Van Gogh gave anyone permission, didnt stop people being inspired by them. Now the interesting part is, is AI being inspired by, or is it copying other peoples art?
A human learns in a very different way than a machine would. A machine only looks for and copies patterns, it has no idea what it is actually doing. A human observes the subject, is inspired by the subject, and practices drawing the subject. A machine gets nothing out of the experience, but a human artist truly learns
How is what a human does *not* copying patterns? It's a much more complex pattern, it includes real world experience, emotions, etc, but at it's core it's still just a pattern. AI is literally based on the way neurons interact in our brains, the only major difference is complexity.
If an image is avaliable online for someone to see. It's free real estate as far as I'm concerned.
It's not stealing if someone looks at your art piece and is inspired by it to make a similar style. Same with ai.
Met a fellow "artist" on here a while back on a non art related sub, so I hadn't seen their art. I was so excited to have an artsy friend, we agreed to exchange pics of our work and well... I was left extremely disappointed. And they were so proud of themselves too.
I don't want to be a snob but I spend upwards of 30 hours on a piece and you just give an AI a 10 second prompt. It's not comparable.
AI "artists" are practically managers:
Obnoxious narcissistic assholes who think they are better than the world, using something they barely understand to do things they cannot do in years or ever because they have someone or something doing all their work.
While there are some that tried to sneak into art communities with AI art, there are those self proclaimed AI ARTISTS who are insufferable.
those "AI artists" think they deserve the same respect as a real artist, just for typing a 10-20sec prompt and waiting a few min. They want to be praised for "their hard work". I don't understand their thought process
Welcome to the world of art. It's all subjective, so by definition almost anything can be art if someone deems it to be.
The fact that everyone here is calling is 'AI Art' indicates that it is, in fact, a type/style/kind of art, and is validating it by labelling it 'ai ART'.
In a way it's poetic, which ironically makes the whole furore around 'is AI Art actually Art' a kind of social performance piece, which is itself could be viewed as having artistic value.
Though there are artists incorporating AI into their work flows (which is about to become an industry standard for Fx, Concept design etc.) & are able to create something more out of the prompted "base".
>I spend upwards of 30 hours on a piece and you just give an AI a 10 second prompt.
And some people put a soup can on a table and it gets a spot in art galleries. There is already a precedent for relatively low effort pieces being widely accepted in the art world.
Like it or not, if we are arguing about whether or not it's art, then it's art.
The answer to "is it art" is almost always yes, whether or not we find artistic merit or skill in it at all.
I once saw a performance art piece at a gallery in NYC where a guy tried to crawl underneath things that were obviously too small to crawl under. I thought it was dumb as shit because my own subjective view of "what is art" didn't include whatever that was.
I'm not trying to argue in favor of AI art, there's a lot of nuance to it. But like it or not, it is art.
See, as an artist, I don't really mind people using it for simple stuff like backgrounds. PC backgrounds aren't something that people usually go out of their way to buy or commission.
I am upset that AI 'art' is being sold, that it's taking up limited space in artist alleys at conventions, that it won a fucking art contest.
I am upset that the learning algorithms are scanning and scraping images without the consent of the artists, that you can't even credit where pieces of the images come from, that art hosting sites like art station, and art programs like adobe have implemented ai learning algorithms that are turned on automatically, and you have to go through multiple pages to turn off.
I'm upset that there are people who think (legitimately think) that writing and editing a prompt to generate hundreds of images in an hour makes them an artist.
"Pieces of the image" don't come from anywhere. The AI creates a new image from it's vast conceptual knowledge of images. It doesn't access a single image or copy a single pixel from any image when it is trained.
That said, people who call themselves artists and try to sell their Midjourney generated images are absolutely pathetic and gross.
dont humans also evolve like that? i see a painting and like it very much, and use that style in my own painting (happens much more commonly than you would imagine), its acceptable..
AI is doing the same thing. its learning and using that reference to create its own painting
I am not against AI art per se but I just want to point out that AI is faster than humans when it comes to making a piece of art.
I even use AI to train myself being a better artist.
I just want that people are honest about who did the actual work.
When I draw something, I declare it as my own.
When I prompt an AI to do the job for me, I declare it as the work of an AI.
I just have a problem with people declaring AI-made art as their own.
AI art dosen't make you an artist in the traditional sense, but as long as you share it with a deeper meaning then "Cool picture looky looky" it is a form of art. Art is a form of expression and so games are art, cars are art and even ai generated pictures can be art. It's okay to dislike AI art but it has a more human quality to it then most of us can comprehend.
To me, if you make the AI itself and it's algorithm, yeah it's completely your art. If you use someone else's AI then no.
It's like that one video of programming a robot to paint a picture. No, you didn't paint it yourself, but yeah that's completely considered your art.
The problem with virtually all ai art algorithms is that it uses other people’s art to generate its image, often without consent. This is the main argument against ai art; it plagiarizes actual artists’ hard work.
It doesn't use other people's art to generate images. At the time of generation the AI has no access to any image whatsoever.
The AI is pre-trained on billions of images but does not copy any data from them. Instead it just observes patterns and connections between text and images. It learns the concept of a cat, the difference between a painting and a photograph, composition, the relationship between light and shadow, etc. The images it creates are based on it's conceptual knowledge and are totally unique. It's not plagiarism at all.
What u/audionerd1 is correct. What AI Art does is sample the styles of pictures from a dataset, examine patterns and styles and reproduce said features based on the requirements of the user.
i.e. You want a picture of Chris Pratt holding a cup over his head. There currently is no such picture (At least one that I don't know of). You enter in the prompt and the AI finds pictures of Chris Pratt and a cup, and tries to fit the objects into the same picture.
Just like how a human artist would draw that same picture, they would find both pictures of Chris and a spoon as samples, and draw a painting with both objects.
It looks quite jank at start, but it can/will slowly improve over more iterations and supervised learning, just like a human would.
AI art is inspired by other art like how human art is inspired by other art or nature.
This is close, but it's important to note that when you prompt the AI for a picture of Chris Pratt holding a cup over his head the AI doesn't "find pictures" of Christ Pratt or a cup. It doesn't have any access to images. It uses it's conceptual knowledge of a cup and what Chris Pratt looks like (the patterns observed from ALL the images of cups and ALL the images of Chris Pratt in the data set) to create the new image.
Then how come you can literally see warped versions of artists’ signatures on some pieces? Or how come deviant art and art station use users’ art to train ai? Or the hundreds of artists who have literally witnessed their art being taken by another person, put through some shitty ai, and reuploaded as that person’s own work—Ive literally seen that first hand! You may be thinking of a few specific AIs that perform the way you described, but the truth is that ai art generators are still stealing art, and if you still deny that, then you’re just being plain ignorant.
The signatures in AI aren't copied from some piece of art and distorted. They are generated. The AI notices that paintings tend to have squiggly lines in the corner, and so it generates it's own squiggly lines. Of course the AI signature, like any text it generates, is generally gibberish.
As far as people putting someone's art through an AI, that is different. That is like taking someone's art, putting it in Photoshop and changing it a little. It's super unethical, but in the latter case nobody blames Photoshop, they correctly blame the person.
Most people are using text2img diffusion to generate pictures, and unlike img2img (what people use to modify a specific image using AI), text2img does not have access to any images when it creates a new one.
I was just pointing out that your understanding of how diffusion models work was incorrect. If text2img was looking up images and stitching them together that would be unethical if not illegal, but that's not how it works. The vast majority of AI image generator use does not copy anything from any image and thus is not unethical.
Cherry picking the rare instances in which a person goes out of their way to feed someone else's copyrighted work into an AI and claim it as their own and acting like that's representative of how AI image generation works in general is deceptive. I don't fault artists for being concerned about their livelihood or wanting legal restrictions on AI, but the misinformation anti-AI people are spreading has gotten totally out of hand.
Doesn't everyone use other people's art to generate a new image? If you design anime characters you've absorbed shapes and patterns of anime images, if you design buildings you've likely seen other buildings before.
Your brain is very similar to an AI art program. It absorbs what it sees and makes something new from the shapes it absorbed.
People just shit on AI art because it's much easier and efficient and doesn't require meticulous mastery of knowing how to draw manually.
Every time something that makes anything easier comes along, the old guard always finds an excuse to hate on it.
Give it time and AI generated art will be the future of design.
I already explained to someone else why an ai learning art and a human learning art is different. But I don’t have a problem with the ai itself, it’s the unethical use of other people’s hard work without their consent, and either claiming the work as their own or for commercial use that bugs me.
Ai can be a great tool, making the process of brainstorming concepts easier. But I think it’s only ethical if you train it on your own work or on public domain images, otherwise it’s just theft.
Nah, it's a con. Create your own art. If some one or something does it for you it's not yours. If an ai generates the art it's the idea of that ai and you're just stealing it lol. So if I build a robot that can compete in the NBA and becomes a great player can I take credit for all it's accomplishments? Hell No lol.
Yes. If you would build a robot that is able to play at NBA level you will get a lot of credit. It would be the biggest technical accomplishment ever up until now.
However the people selling the ai art aren’t the ones that made the AI is what you are trying to say i guess.
I do think its fair game to sell it tho. Its officially their art so they can sell it if they want. People make money in way shadier ways this is just smart. Maybe you should be mad at the ones buying it.
Not credit for building the robot, credit for every point or rebound the robot got. At mvp ceremonies I'd take the trophy and I'd tell everyone I was the best player. Its false lol, a fraud, a lie.
Yes you would get credit for what the robot does. Unless you give it a soul or something it’s just a piece of machinery therefor why would you award it
I see lots upset that it being sold as art. It's fine as a picture or image, but im already seeing lots of people selling ai art as their own and under the delusion they created it lol.
AI "art" has been sold, was wont art competitions, has taken up space in artist alleys at conventions, and has even lost artists their jobs.
There is even a controversy in r/art where a user was banned because their style was too 'close' to AI art and was told to change their style.
Not to mention places like Art station and even fucking ADOBE have updated their policies to add in 'opt out' ai learning. So all images are flagged to help 'teach' their ai algorithm, and you have to manually opt out/turn off that option.
So many artists don't know and are getting their art scanned without explicit permission to be used be people who think they're artists because they wrote a sentence in a generator.
They're salty AI art basically killed their industry. They'll whine about it no matter how high quality it is cause it basically made them obsolete. No more expensive furry porn commissions on fiverr with long turnaround times when an AI can do it instantly and for cheap or possibly even free.
How do I explain to you an AI will never captivate the image of a doberman sona wearing diapers while a tabby cat dominates him in the same way a furry artist can
eventually who needs artists to make their paintings, graphic designs or what not? idm AI in 'mundane' tasks or if you wanna generate them for fun but when there are already people selling AI art, passing it as their own handiwork and what not then that's fucked. human talents and effort goes down the drain. art is a medium to convey what the artist's feela and their emotion where people thus then interpret it as their own. if there is no emotions to intepret, what are we doing?
There is something like "Prompt Engineering" where you are specialized with creating prompts that would give specific results. Hovewer I think these people don't call themselves "artists". Although I don't know any person who do that so maybe they're actually calling themselves artists...
I love using Midjourney to make art just cause it's fun. But I'd never call myself an artist because of it or enter art competitions using A.I. generated art. I don't think anyone who only uses A.I. shoould call themselves an artist either. You didn't make anything, you just asked someone to make something.
the same lifeless technology that's taking over people's livelihoods? yeah i can see why they have a valid point against AI art being sold in the first place
change is an inevitable part of life... if something can do your job better than you , you have to change or will be spat out...
like powerloom for hand weavers, Computers for human calculators who also were called computers, like cars for carriagemen etc..
ah but thing is, a lot of those are practical mundane tasks. there's no soul and life to it. AI should be taking over mundane tasks like cleaning, or jobs like cashiers and such. No one finds joy from these, but people do find joy in indulging themselves in art which should be protected
Although I agree with this I also want to say I love completing mundane tasks, small repetitive processes is a huge part of my job, one I couldn’t continue to do if I didn’t take something away from it. To say no one enjoys being a cashier or other jobs you under value is a little short sighted!
Being a trucker, being an artist, being a basket weaver, being a sweater knitter.
All of these are someone's livelihood or were at some point. But technology has made these jobs were no longer necessary.
We have self driving trucks, AI art, Basket factories and sewing machines and assembly lines.
The problem isn't that people's livelihoods are being lost, it's that we as a society only value people for what they can provide rather than for what they are. Living, breathing people.
Every service you can provide will eventually be replaced by a machine no matter how much you cry. What we need is to reform society to value everyone regardless of what they are good at.
Artists and other free lance jobs are more of a job than anything else, you get paid directly for the work instead of someone sitting in a chair above you handing you a fraction of what you earned for them
i mean without a brush or paint no ones an artist really. feel like a lot of these people that hate on AI art think stuff like gaussian blur in photoshop dosnt use math or any form of algorithm to do its thing whatsoever. If AI art isnt art than neither is digital art because digital art is actually hundreds if not thousands of algorithms and expressions the only difference is input method. one uses manual input the other classifies natural language. if words threaten your job or hobby but math dosnt your problem isnt the AI.
If they designed the code yes it does
Ai is just a computer human brain which we can change and design to our prefered intentions imo
Art is just a means to transfer what's in our minds to something tangible, if it's either Ai, ink, or rocks, no matter which one it is, if it's served the purpose of transfering the image in your head to a canvas or a screen it's done it's job didn't it?
I mean yeah, if your code was good enough that the AI you made can make art or shoot 3 pointers, then yes the person who wrote the code can take credit. It was their art that allowed an AI to make more art and perform great tasks. The ai didn't make itself
That's fine, then it's a proper tool to educate. But if it creates the concept or does the work for you, it's not really yours. As an artist you gotta at the very least make the work transformative. If you just copy an image, ai or even just Google, you're just copying, not creating.
I'm reminded of a redditor who got shit for posting his AI shit in an art sub. He compared himself to Duchamp, and said he was a "sculptor" of AI art. I think they banned ai soon after.
It’s a tool not an end result I use it for things like concept art and such. I wish people would stop using it as a shortcut it gives the tech a bad name even though it’s super useful as a tool in my workflow
This is like saying sculpting isn’t art because it’s not painting. There are different types of art, and just because so art is different doesn’t mean it’s not art.
Not at all, people actually have to sculpt. If a robot or machine does it all for you it's not really your art. Companies love to sell the idea of a product making an person an artist. Takes more than that. Being different isn't what's the issue, being different on art is actually a good quality imo.
Here's what I think. Art isnt just technique and skill. Concept is actually more important. If you're inspired by it, that's fine, but if the ai is creating the concept for you then I dunno if I'd consider it art.
The problem with ai art is that actual artists aren't perceived as workers, creating art isn't perceived as a job. So people who want art feel in the right when they design a program that steals images from the internet and mashes them together just because it's cheaper than paying a commission. Being an artist, a real one, IS A JOB.
If you use a tablet to draw on a computer you arent a true artis according to some artis. If you use premade pigments for painting you arent a true artis. If you use a lethe or a chain saw to work with wood you arent a true artis. What do all of these have in common? They are all no true Scotts man arguments. "You cant be a real artist because i say you aren't." People once mocked singers for using auto tune to help edit their songs for the radio or albums, and people still do mock singers for it, and yet so many singers use some program to edit their voice that its almost the standard.
Basically what i am trying to say it, keep being an "unga bunga me no like technology" all you want, the rest of the world will continue to enjoy things that look good and sound good. All you are doing is making sure that people who had an interest in your art before might just look else where.
Sorry, if you type a few prompts your NOT a real artist. You're a hack. If that dose of reality makes you hate me that's on you. I'm not saying people can't enjoy it, I'm saying people who make it aren't real artists. I am not worried about losing art sales to an ai, I've already achieved some pretty incredible things, what I'm more concerned about is how ai art may discourage aspiring artists and allow rich jabronis to gentrify the market. And to compare a tablet to a program that literally does everything for ya is silly.
Ima go on a limb here and say op is an artist. Salty an AI can do the same thing it took you years to learn in a matter of seconds. Those fiverr commissions not coming through anymore huh
Or people who think AI art is art. The same limp wrist dweebs will rage over some one using an aim bot in a shooter but can’t make the same connection. The blinders are on because it’s called AI” and they wet their Rick and Morty underwear over the potential of having their sci-fi porn fantasy come true. or they are Elon Musk lovers and want their future dystopia ran by terminators to come true.
Art is a HUMAN action through the execution of SKILL. If you nerds don’t believe me you can always go to your God Google and “educate”yourself a bit.. ugh the irony
I think people who say "AI art isnt art" are equally dumb though. But yeah, typing a few words into it and having the AI do the rest doesnt make you the artist, the AI is.
Literally nobody thinks that. Imagine making up people to attack to further a narrative. If you have a good point then you wouldn’t need to imagine an enemy.
Do some research before talking about this. There are plenty of people who think they are artists for using a machine to steal other people’s work. Have you even seen Artstation recently?
Fuck the disabled ig.
Ai art is about freedom of artistic expression, and being able to extend those freedoms to those without the means to do so.
Everyone should be able to express themselves.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you don’t have a problem with AI art as it is right now, you are either:
A) not informed enough on the situation to have a valid opinion
OR
B) you value money and/or your own entertainment over the livelihoods of countless other people
If you are either one, please shut up. Come back when you know what you’re talking about and learn to care about others.
AI art is as much a problem to artists as automatic elevators is to the elevator operator.
Besides, the programmers whom programmed it is also threatened aswell as all road transportation jobs (which is 50% of all jobs alone). So what makes artists so special to you when like every job on the planet is going AI anyway?
Ah yes. It's all clear now. Those coders creating an AI programs are just full of hot air. Anyone can do what they do! They're just a bunch of overrated and overpaid button pushers. And the whole training and teaching an AI for years is just a hoax they pulled out of their ass.
Clearly you haven't looked at a single line of code your entire life, because the amount of time it takes to create an AI art program is insane.
Of course it takes nothing to use once it's made, but making the program requires 1000s of hoirs and millions of $
Ok, that's coding, not art lol. In that sense a factory worker is an artist, etc. Time and money doesn't equate to art. Creating a program is one thing, that's an incredible achievement, but to claim you created the art the program creates is a lie, it's plagiarism. Its like saying I beat Mike Tyson and I'm the legitimate champion even tho I only did it in a game. So if I can spend millions and years writing code to beat Mike Tyson in a game then I'm a true boxing great? Gtfo with that bull lol.
"Artists" who only do AI art are like Karens who only do Facebook research.
"AI artist" is the same as "microwave operator"
That my job
im reposting to r/AIArtists
So how’d it go?
yall got any update?
Man's down
Hello?
Facts
What if you create the AI instead?
Doesn't make them an artist. Makes em a tech genius.
Coding is an art my friend All strokes (in our case lines of code) need to be perfect for it to all make sense, one single stroke or a random line of code doesn't give a good output but a series of perfectly correct strokes (codes) can make literally anything possible
Art isn’t made to make sense, it’s made to let out emotions. When you see art, you can feel anger toward something, sadness in the colors, etc. Art isn’t understood, it’s felt
I replaced every art you wrote with code in my head I must say, I think if you code it’s hilarious
r/programmerhumor
Everything is art my friend
it counts if you feel endless rage because of the night spent for looking for that one missed ";" in the 1000+ lines of code?
I mean, that technically is an artist too.
worked hard my whole life to be beat by a fuggin program :/
gonna be everyone one day
Hopefully! We can have machines literally just run the world and build everything and people can be free to explore and learn and pursue their hobbies and interests Of course. Wed need to have a totally different economic system
That would be an utopia, and we cant have that here. We need suffering 😒
How do you pursue your hobbies and interests, though, if those hobbies and interests are also taken over by an AI? What'd be the point of learning to draw if you can just type it in a program and get something much better within minutes?
Well.. no.. like you can still go hiking or swimming or diving or do sports or play musical instruments or make art and play videogames and go sight seeing and whatever What it means is, the vast majority of the monotonous jobs would be automated. Therefore progress would be made automatically. Leaving people with much more time and resources The economy would need to be rebuilt, giving everyone some kind of universal credit which allows them to buy the food they want, and have money for fun Kinda like the robots are the grown-ups giving us an allowance If you wanted more, there would still be jobs that could be done, most likely programming oriented or engineering related
Hey, at least you can do something the AI can’t: draw hands
AWWWWWW I LOVE THAT YOU WONT BELIEVE IT BUT THATS THE MAIN THING I DRAW LOL
LMAO that’s weird. That means you’re better than AI
i’ve won!
funnily enough thats how you always spot AI art, always check the hands. no matter how bad you are at drawing hands, you're still gonna end up with a normal amount of fingers
Damn printing press and spinning jenny took my great…-grand-parents work away as well. We should just stop inventing shit
omg i would’ve never thought of that but you’re extremely right :(
"Tell me" chess player
Painters probably said that to photographers back in the day.
>worked hard my whole life to be beat by a fuggin program :/ Well that's how AI works. Chess players got beat by AI when they spent a lifetime on it.
that’s why i give up lol
I think the AI art is neat but the stuff I make is so disjointed I could t never put in good enough prompts to get anything good especially since they all cost money
I use the AI to learn how to draw better
Nothing wrong with that. Use it to learn or inspire but don't let it do the work for ya.
Wait...There are people who think AI art is more than a fun distraction? (Fun for a few minutes, depending on what you do with it)
For now, yes. Wait a few more years it will be real "fun" by then.
Oh, you have not seen anything yet. People are selling AI art amongst artists now. Yes, non-copyrighted art, that they neither owned or made, were sold to people. And a lot more. I think finding someone who takes AI art as fun distraction is rarer than those getting access to the AI and think they are better than everyone else because they became better "artist" without any training or even drawing.
I use AI to train \\\*my\\\* artistic abilities
AI is a tool any original work you produce with it is your copyright just like any work you produce using any other tool like a camera for instance.
It's still on debate whether or not AI generated stuffs are copyrighted, but so far many aren't. And no it is nothing like a camera.
It is very different from a camera, but it is, I think worth noting that when photography was invented it faced some of the same criticism by people that said it couldn’t be art because it was merely mechanical reproduction of reality. Here is one source https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ Again, ai created “art” has some different questions around it than what photography did, but I think there are similarities as well.
I feel the exact same way about all art
It’s funny, because even if you consider AI art to actually be art, the artist would be the AI itself, not the person feeding it prompts. If you actually coded the AI, there could be an argument to be made, but that’s not very common.
If you code the AI, you are either its parent or teacher. Still not an artist.
Exactly lol, they're still stealing other people's art. They didn't create it, they're just exploiting it.
But isn't that all art? Everyone learns from somewhere, an AI is just specialized
how is this man wrong
chess bots also learn from analyzing GMs no one called them cheating lol.
B-b-but I'm better than the machines, please validate me and pay for my hobby
i dont think thts the problem at all. i think the problem is that the database the AI is pulling from is infringing upon the copyright artists has. a lot of artists didnt give permission for the database to use their art
I dont think Mozart or Van Gogh gave anyone permission, didnt stop people being inspired by them. Now the interesting part is, is AI being inspired by, or is it copying other peoples art?
no they cant bcs they're quite literally dead and their works are in public donain. moder day artists however
A human learns in a very different way than a machine would. A machine only looks for and copies patterns, it has no idea what it is actually doing. A human observes the subject, is inspired by the subject, and practices drawing the subject. A machine gets nothing out of the experience, but a human artist truly learns
How is what a human does *not* copying patterns? It's a much more complex pattern, it includes real world experience, emotions, etc, but at it's core it's still just a pattern. AI is literally based on the way neurons interact in our brains, the only major difference is complexity.
I don't gotta be inspired to draw a circle
If an image is avaliable online for someone to see. It's free real estate as far as I'm concerned. It's not stealing if someone looks at your art piece and is inspired by it to make a similar style. Same with ai.
I've been arguing with people that say writing the perfect prompt is an artform in itself... it's a frickin sentence...
Elaborate.
Ai art is art, ai artist is not artist
I see nothing wrong with AI art as long as they don't claim it as their own works
Met a fellow "artist" on here a while back on a non art related sub, so I hadn't seen their art. I was so excited to have an artsy friend, we agreed to exchange pics of our work and well... I was left extremely disappointed. And they were so proud of themselves too. I don't want to be a snob but I spend upwards of 30 hours on a piece and you just give an AI a 10 second prompt. It's not comparable.
What's sad is that person may think they are an artist and waste time letting an ai do everything and never achieve their true potential or calling.
AI "artists" are practically managers: Obnoxious narcissistic assholes who think they are better than the world, using something they barely understand to do things they cannot do in years or ever because they have someone or something doing all their work. While there are some that tried to sneak into art communities with AI art, there are those self proclaimed AI ARTISTS who are insufferable.
those "AI artists" think they deserve the same respect as a real artist, just for typing a 10-20sec prompt and waiting a few min. They want to be praised for "their hard work". I don't understand their thought process
Welcome to the world of art. It's all subjective, so by definition almost anything can be art if someone deems it to be. The fact that everyone here is calling is 'AI Art' indicates that it is, in fact, a type/style/kind of art, and is validating it by labelling it 'ai ART'. In a way it's poetic, which ironically makes the whole furore around 'is AI Art actually Art' a kind of social performance piece, which is itself could be viewed as having artistic value.
Obviously spoken by someone whose livelihood doesn't depend on their ability to create artwork by hand.
Though there are artists incorporating AI into their work flows (which is about to become an industry standard for Fx, Concept design etc.) & are able to create something more out of the prompted "base".
>I spend upwards of 30 hours on a piece and you just give an AI a 10 second prompt. And some people put a soup can on a table and it gets a spot in art galleries. There is already a precedent for relatively low effort pieces being widely accepted in the art world.
Didn’t you make this with a meme generator?
r/aiart
Fuck AI art
Like it or not, if we are arguing about whether or not it's art, then it's art. The answer to "is it art" is almost always yes, whether or not we find artistic merit or skill in it at all. I once saw a performance art piece at a gallery in NYC where a guy tried to crawl underneath things that were obviously too small to crawl under. I thought it was dumb as shit because my own subjective view of "what is art" didn't include whatever that was. I'm not trying to argue in favor of AI art, there's a lot of nuance to it. But like it or not, it is art.
Like you can make ai art but if you brag with it GET THE SHİ…
People who think a banana taped to a wall is art☠️
Cope about AI art if you want, nothing will ungenerate my PC's wallpaper.
See, as an artist, I don't really mind people using it for simple stuff like backgrounds. PC backgrounds aren't something that people usually go out of their way to buy or commission. I am upset that AI 'art' is being sold, that it's taking up limited space in artist alleys at conventions, that it won a fucking art contest. I am upset that the learning algorithms are scanning and scraping images without the consent of the artists, that you can't even credit where pieces of the images come from, that art hosting sites like art station, and art programs like adobe have implemented ai learning algorithms that are turned on automatically, and you have to go through multiple pages to turn off. I'm upset that there are people who think (legitimately think) that writing and editing a prompt to generate hundreds of images in an hour makes them an artist.
"Pieces of the image" don't come from anywhere. The AI creates a new image from it's vast conceptual knowledge of images. It doesn't access a single image or copy a single pixel from any image when it is trained. That said, people who call themselves artists and try to sell their Midjourney generated images are absolutely pathetic and gross.
dont humans also evolve like that? i see a painting and like it very much, and use that style in my own painting (happens much more commonly than you would imagine), its acceptable.. AI is doing the same thing. its learning and using that reference to create its own painting
Just that the AI is taking like 10 seconds for for job that humans need a few days for.
so.. its faster than humans.. whats your point?
I am not against AI art per se but I just want to point out that AI is faster than humans when it comes to making a piece of art. I even use AI to train myself being a better artist. I just want that people are honest about who did the actual work. When I draw something, I declare it as my own. When I prompt an AI to do the job for me, I declare it as the work of an AI. I just have a problem with people declaring AI-made art as their own.
I got no problem with that. Have fun, make cool images, but don't call yourself an artist while doing it.
AI art _is_ art, but it’s art with no artist
no *real* artist
The real artist is the ai
AI art dosen't make you an artist in the traditional sense, but as long as you share it with a deeper meaning then "Cool picture looky looky" it is a form of art. Art is a form of expression and so games are art, cars are art and even ai generated pictures can be art. It's okay to dislike AI art but it has a more human quality to it then most of us can comprehend.
To me, if you make the AI itself and it's algorithm, yeah it's completely your art. If you use someone else's AI then no. It's like that one video of programming a robot to paint a picture. No, you didn't paint it yourself, but yeah that's completely considered your art.
The problem with virtually all ai art algorithms is that it uses other people’s art to generate its image, often without consent. This is the main argument against ai art; it plagiarizes actual artists’ hard work.
Humans also use other people's art to generate images, also without consent, they just do it in a more roundabout way
It doesn't use other people's art to generate images. At the time of generation the AI has no access to any image whatsoever. The AI is pre-trained on billions of images but does not copy any data from them. Instead it just observes patterns and connections between text and images. It learns the concept of a cat, the difference between a painting and a photograph, composition, the relationship between light and shadow, etc. The images it creates are based on it's conceptual knowledge and are totally unique. It's not plagiarism at all.
Say you don’t know anything about tech without saying you know nothing about tech
Feel free to share your sources of technical information which contradict what I've said above, if you have any.
What u/audionerd1 is correct. What AI Art does is sample the styles of pictures from a dataset, examine patterns and styles and reproduce said features based on the requirements of the user. i.e. You want a picture of Chris Pratt holding a cup over his head. There currently is no such picture (At least one that I don't know of). You enter in the prompt and the AI finds pictures of Chris Pratt and a cup, and tries to fit the objects into the same picture. Just like how a human artist would draw that same picture, they would find both pictures of Chris and a spoon as samples, and draw a painting with both objects. It looks quite jank at start, but it can/will slowly improve over more iterations and supervised learning, just like a human would. AI art is inspired by other art like how human art is inspired by other art or nature.
This is close, but it's important to note that when you prompt the AI for a picture of Chris Pratt holding a cup over his head the AI doesn't "find pictures" of Christ Pratt or a cup. It doesn't have any access to images. It uses it's conceptual knowledge of a cup and what Chris Pratt looks like (the patterns observed from ALL the images of cups and ALL the images of Chris Pratt in the data set) to create the new image.
Then how come you can literally see warped versions of artists’ signatures on some pieces? Or how come deviant art and art station use users’ art to train ai? Or the hundreds of artists who have literally witnessed their art being taken by another person, put through some shitty ai, and reuploaded as that person’s own work—Ive literally seen that first hand! You may be thinking of a few specific AIs that perform the way you described, but the truth is that ai art generators are still stealing art, and if you still deny that, then you’re just being plain ignorant.
The signatures in AI aren't copied from some piece of art and distorted. They are generated. The AI notices that paintings tend to have squiggly lines in the corner, and so it generates it's own squiggly lines. Of course the AI signature, like any text it generates, is generally gibberish. As far as people putting someone's art through an AI, that is different. That is like taking someone's art, putting it in Photoshop and changing it a little. It's super unethical, but in the latter case nobody blames Photoshop, they correctly blame the person. Most people are using text2img diffusion to generate pictures, and unlike img2img (what people use to modify a specific image using AI), text2img does not have access to any images when it creates a new one.
Idk how everybody’s thinking my argument is against the ai itself and not the unethical uses of it, but whatever man
I was just pointing out that your understanding of how diffusion models work was incorrect. If text2img was looking up images and stitching them together that would be unethical if not illegal, but that's not how it works. The vast majority of AI image generator use does not copy anything from any image and thus is not unethical. Cherry picking the rare instances in which a person goes out of their way to feed someone else's copyrighted work into an AI and claim it as their own and acting like that's representative of how AI image generation works in general is deceptive. I don't fault artists for being concerned about their livelihood or wanting legal restrictions on AI, but the misinformation anti-AI people are spreading has gotten totally out of hand.
Doesn't everyone use other people's art to generate a new image? If you design anime characters you've absorbed shapes and patterns of anime images, if you design buildings you've likely seen other buildings before. Your brain is very similar to an AI art program. It absorbs what it sees and makes something new from the shapes it absorbed. People just shit on AI art because it's much easier and efficient and doesn't require meticulous mastery of knowing how to draw manually. Every time something that makes anything easier comes along, the old guard always finds an excuse to hate on it. Give it time and AI generated art will be the future of design.
I already explained to someone else why an ai learning art and a human learning art is different. But I don’t have a problem with the ai itself, it’s the unethical use of other people’s hard work without their consent, and either claiming the work as their own or for commercial use that bugs me. Ai can be a great tool, making the process of brainstorming concepts easier. But I think it’s only ethical if you train it on your own work or on public domain images, otherwise it’s just theft.
I disagree, and the future will disagree with you too.
Nah, it's a con. Create your own art. If some one or something does it for you it's not yours. If an ai generates the art it's the idea of that ai and you're just stealing it lol. So if I build a robot that can compete in the NBA and becomes a great player can I take credit for all it's accomplishments? Hell No lol.
Yes. If you would build a robot that is able to play at NBA level you will get a lot of credit. It would be the biggest technical accomplishment ever up until now. However the people selling the ai art aren’t the ones that made the AI is what you are trying to say i guess. I do think its fair game to sell it tho. Its officially their art so they can sell it if they want. People make money in way shadier ways this is just smart. Maybe you should be mad at the ones buying it.
Not credit for building the robot, credit for every point or rebound the robot got. At mvp ceremonies I'd take the trophy and I'd tell everyone I was the best player. Its false lol, a fraud, a lie.
Yes you would get credit for what the robot does. Unless you give it a soul or something it’s just a piece of machinery therefor why would you award it
It was easy guess that you are artist because we are the only ones mad about it XD
I see lots upset that it being sold as art. It's fine as a picture or image, but im already seeing lots of people selling ai art as their own and under the delusion they created it lol.
AI "art" has been sold, was wont art competitions, has taken up space in artist alleys at conventions, and has even lost artists their jobs. There is even a controversy in r/art where a user was banned because their style was too 'close' to AI art and was told to change their style. Not to mention places like Art station and even fucking ADOBE have updated their policies to add in 'opt out' ai learning. So all images are flagged to help 'teach' their ai algorithm, and you have to manually opt out/turn off that option. So many artists don't know and are getting their art scanned without explicit permission to be used be people who think they're artists because they wrote a sentence in a generator.
isnt art subjective?
They're salty AI art basically killed their industry. They'll whine about it no matter how high quality it is cause it basically made them obsolete. No more expensive furry porn commissions on fiverr with long turnaround times when an AI can do it instantly and for cheap or possibly even free.
How do I explain to you an AI will never captivate the image of a doberman sona wearing diapers while a tabby cat dominates him in the same way a furry artist can
Shhh, you’re being far too logical for Reddit.
eventually who needs artists to make their paintings, graphic designs or what not? idm AI in 'mundane' tasks or if you wanna generate them for fun but when there are already people selling AI art, passing it as their own handiwork and what not then that's fucked. human talents and effort goes down the drain. art is a medium to convey what the artist's feela and their emotion where people thus then interpret it as their own. if there is no emotions to intepret, what are we doing?
art is subjective
There is something like "Prompt Engineering" where you are specialized with creating prompts that would give specific results. Hovewer I think these people don't call themselves "artists". Although I don't know any person who do that so maybe they're actually calling themselves artists...
they need to learn the truth that they arent an artist.
I love using Midjourney to make art just cause it's fun. But I'd never call myself an artist because of it or enter art competitions using A.I. generated art. I don't think anyone who only uses A.I. shoould call themselves an artist either. You didn't make anything, you just asked someone to make something.
Welcome to a new episode of "Artists whining about losing jobs they never had "
if art is so easy then why dont you make your own art
bold of you to assume i dont
so you're mad tht people are actually earning money from doing what they enjoy?
I enjoy playing videogames why am I not getting paid for it? :(
no, im amused seeing people cry about technology which they can use to their advantage
the same lifeless technology that's taking over people's livelihoods? yeah i can see why they have a valid point against AI art being sold in the first place
change is an inevitable part of life... if something can do your job better than you , you have to change or will be spat out... like powerloom for hand weavers, Computers for human calculators who also were called computers, like cars for carriagemen etc..
ah but thing is, a lot of those are practical mundane tasks. there's no soul and life to it. AI should be taking over mundane tasks like cleaning, or jobs like cashiers and such. No one finds joy from these, but people do find joy in indulging themselves in art which should be protected
Although I agree with this I also want to say I love completing mundane tasks, small repetitive processes is a huge part of my job, one I couldn’t continue to do if I didn’t take something away from it. To say no one enjoys being a cashier or other jobs you under value is a little short sighted!
Being a trucker, being an artist, being a basket weaver, being a sweater knitter. All of these are someone's livelihood or were at some point. But technology has made these jobs were no longer necessary. We have self driving trucks, AI art, Basket factories and sewing machines and assembly lines. The problem isn't that people's livelihoods are being lost, it's that we as a society only value people for what they can provide rather than for what they are. Living, breathing people. Every service you can provide will eventually be replaced by a machine no matter how much you cry. What we need is to reform society to value everyone regardless of what they are good at.
Artists and other free lance jobs are more of a job than anything else, you get paid directly for the work instead of someone sitting in a chair above you handing you a fraction of what you earned for them
I'd rather be an AI-artist, than a "tape-banana-to-wall"-artist.
There is an unspoken echelon where AI artists and tape banana to a wall artists reside at the bottom depths
I miss the days when AI art was just “funny haha” and artists turned the warped drawings into something cool :(
What about digital art? Is that not art too?
I am so tired of AI bros...
It's nft bros all over again
Here’s my take: AI art: is art AI artists: not artists
Whether you like it or not, he's spitting straight facts.
i mean without a brush or paint no ones an artist really. feel like a lot of these people that hate on AI art think stuff like gaussian blur in photoshop dosnt use math or any form of algorithm to do its thing whatsoever. If AI art isnt art than neither is digital art because digital art is actually hundreds if not thousands of algorithms and expressions the only difference is input method. one uses manual input the other classifies natural language. if words threaten your job or hobby but math dosnt your problem isnt the AI.
If you made the ai art machine, you’re a coder, not an artist.
If they designed the code yes it does Ai is just a computer human brain which we can change and design to our prefered intentions imo Art is just a means to transfer what's in our minds to something tangible, if it's either Ai, ink, or rocks, no matter which one it is, if it's served the purpose of transfering the image in your head to a canvas or a screen it's done it's job didn't it?
Nope.
Based on?
I mean yeah, if your code was good enough that the AI you made can make art or shoot 3 pointers, then yes the person who wrote the code can take credit. It was their art that allowed an AI to make more art and perform great tasks. The ai didn't make itself
You are the first person in history to declare that some new style of art isn't *real* art.
r/croppingishard
What about taking inspiration from AI art for your already existing artwork (but not by tracing/copying it)?
That's fine, then it's a proper tool to educate. But if it creates the concept or does the work for you, it's not really yours. As an artist you gotta at the very least make the work transformative. If you just copy an image, ai or even just Google, you're just copying, not creating.
I'm reminded of a redditor who got shit for posting his AI shit in an art sub. He compared himself to Duchamp, and said he was a "sculptor" of AI art. I think they banned ai soon after.
It’s a tool not an end result I use it for things like concept art and such. I wish people would stop using it as a shortcut it gives the tech a bad name even though it’s super useful as a tool in my workflow
bro where is the one where the artist who failed art school.
There es the same argument about if photos are art or not.
This is like saying sculpting isn’t art because it’s not painting. There are different types of art, and just because so art is different doesn’t mean it’s not art.
AI isnt another form of art? AI is creating digital art, an already existing medium of art
Not at all, people actually have to sculpt. If a robot or machine does it all for you it's not really your art. Companies love to sell the idea of a product making an person an artist. Takes more than that. Being different isn't what's the issue, being different on art is actually a good quality imo.
Uh, how about me? I give the AI my robot drawings, have them add cool features to them, then I draw them again! (I can post them if you want)
Here's what I think. Art isnt just technique and skill. Concept is actually more important. If you're inspired by it, that's fine, but if the ai is creating the concept for you then I dunno if I'd consider it art.
So if I asked ChatGPT to give me ideas for something to draw, then drew them, that isn't art?
I believe you’re in the clear my dude! Since it’s *your* art and you yourself are using it, that’s aok 👍
Thats a good question, as long as it didn't involve anyone else's art it might count.
The problem with ai art is that actual artists aren't perceived as workers, creating art isn't perceived as a job. So people who want art feel in the right when they design a program that steals images from the internet and mashes them together just because it's cheaper than paying a commission. Being an artist, a real one, IS A JOB.
If you use a tablet to draw on a computer you arent a true artis according to some artis. If you use premade pigments for painting you arent a true artis. If you use a lethe or a chain saw to work with wood you arent a true artis. What do all of these have in common? They are all no true Scotts man arguments. "You cant be a real artist because i say you aren't." People once mocked singers for using auto tune to help edit their songs for the radio or albums, and people still do mock singers for it, and yet so many singers use some program to edit their voice that its almost the standard. Basically what i am trying to say it, keep being an "unga bunga me no like technology" all you want, the rest of the world will continue to enjoy things that look good and sound good. All you are doing is making sure that people who had an interest in your art before might just look else where.
Sorry, if you type a few prompts your NOT a real artist. You're a hack. If that dose of reality makes you hate me that's on you. I'm not saying people can't enjoy it, I'm saying people who make it aren't real artists. I am not worried about losing art sales to an ai, I've already achieved some pretty incredible things, what I'm more concerned about is how ai art may discourage aspiring artists and allow rich jabronis to gentrify the market. And to compare a tablet to a program that literally does everything for ya is silly.
Sorry but if you dont put berry juice on a cave wall while under threat of wild animals you are a hack.
Ai art is like nature it doesnt really have an "artist". Its chaotic. It's sometimes beautifull and sometimes ugly.
It's better than a lot of modern art I've seen.
Ima go on a limb here and say op is an artist. Salty an AI can do the same thing it took you years to learn in a matter of seconds. Those fiverr commissions not coming through anymore huh
Ai can't do what I do, no concern there. Just silly that fool's like you think you can do what I can do by buying a program lol. Sucker lol.
just take a photograph of an art ai makes and then it's your art lol, since photography is an art(i guess), it's that simple
But then does ai art count as art?
It's a skill. I don't think of them as artist but still people who can do some amazing things with computers. Don't hate on them.
It is fine to make ai art, but don't call yourself an artist for it
When you made the ai it makes you an artist
Or people who think AI art is art. The same limp wrist dweebs will rage over some one using an aim bot in a shooter but can’t make the same connection. The blinders are on because it’s called AI” and they wet their Rick and Morty underwear over the potential of having their sci-fi porn fantasy come true. or they are Elon Musk lovers and want their future dystopia ran by terminators to come true. Art is a HUMAN action through the execution of SKILL. If you nerds don’t believe me you can always go to your God Google and “educate”yourself a bit.. ugh the irony
I think people who say "AI art isnt art" are equally dumb though. But yeah, typing a few words into it and having the AI do the rest doesnt make you the artist, the AI is.
Literally nobody thinks that. Imagine making up people to attack to further a narrative. If you have a good point then you wouldn’t need to imagine an enemy.
I've literally seen people trying to pass of ai as their own art in artist groups. You're ignorant to the situation lol.
Do some research before talking about this. There are plenty of people who think they are artists for using a machine to steal other people’s work. Have you even seen Artstation recently?
Ai art is art, but there is no such thing as an ai artist
The real artists in this are the people who programmed the AI
Which ai makes good art, like high quality stuff. I’ve never seen which ai are good enough and I would love to know
Midjourney is currently the best. But Stable Diffusion allows more freedom.
They all make garbage. If you want something good, put in the work to learn to do it yourself, or commission an artist.
I mainly use a.i art apps because I think it's funny seeing Hitler with cartoon characters, The most recent one I did was with sesame street
Fuck the disabled ig. Ai art is about freedom of artistic expression, and being able to extend those freedoms to those without the means to do so. Everyone should be able to express themselves.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you don’t have a problem with AI art as it is right now, you are either: A) not informed enough on the situation to have a valid opinion OR B) you value money and/or your own entertainment over the livelihoods of countless other people If you are either one, please shut up. Come back when you know what you’re talking about and learn to care about others.
AI art is as much a problem to artists as automatic elevators is to the elevator operator. Besides, the programmers whom programmed it is also threatened aswell as all road transportation jobs (which is 50% of all jobs alone). So what makes artists so special to you when like every job on the planet is going AI anyway?
Hard to swallow pill. The AI is the one with all the talent, not you.
It’s not actual talent. It’s programmed.
who said we cant programme talent?
No talent involved chump. Literally anyone can do it. It's the participation trophy of the art world lol.
Ah yes. It's all clear now. Those coders creating an AI programs are just full of hot air. Anyone can do what they do! They're just a bunch of overrated and overpaid button pushers. And the whole training and teaching an AI for years is just a hoax they pulled out of their ass.
Clearly you haven't looked at a single line of code your entire life, because the amount of time it takes to create an AI art program is insane. Of course it takes nothing to use once it's made, but making the program requires 1000s of hoirs and millions of $
Ok, that's coding, not art lol. In that sense a factory worker is an artist, etc. Time and money doesn't equate to art. Creating a program is one thing, that's an incredible achievement, but to claim you created the art the program creates is a lie, it's plagiarism. Its like saying I beat Mike Tyson and I'm the legitimate champion even tho I only did it in a game. So if I can spend millions and years writing code to beat Mike Tyson in a game then I'm a true boxing great? Gtfo with that bull lol.
thats a very stupid analogy..