A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

But anyway, you cannot have AIs making the work of the most genius humans because the complexity is irreplaceable/irreplicable unless you make an actual organism (+, because the emotions' effects being copied and studied does not allow one to understand what they'd actually do, just an example, never minding the rest of the human being).

I see your point, but I don't see why it shouldn't be able to infer and fake things like emotions from sufficient training data.

You can get some pretty insane complexity from the simplest algorithms. Just look at the Mandelbrot set for example.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Nilsi

[Danioover9000]

   Is it ethical or moral to continue using A.I drawing programs, knowing the usage would increase the probability of replacing Digital artists?

Edited September 12, 2022 by Danioover9000

[AtheisticNonduality]

AI would not make this simply because it would never have a reason to, and it'd be too autistic to develop it just from observation and mimicking various effects.

 

[Juan]

As a full time artist, I don’t feel afraid towards AI art, I could see it as another “human being” making his own thing, each human is unique, so a AI can be. I could use AI now to look up reference for my work, sometimes I don’t find the precise reference I was looking for, with that said, use it as a advantage. 
 

Yes some people will prefer use AI art to save $$$$, but I guess at this stage is not yet perfectly made so you can use let’s said 50 or so % of what you been looking to create using AI and make it your own twist. Again each human has it’s own style, make that so unique so is not easy to be replicated like others.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Juan

[Juan]

Adding another point, what about Taxi Robot Cars, Cooking Robots, etc. that works by themselves? It’s already replacing some humans, it will help for sure the people with disabilities for example, but I guess at this stage, these things has it’s limits that if you’re aware enough, you could use it as a advantage. In the long run, we gotta work with it rather than against it. 
 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Juan

[Juan]

And a final point hehe going here meta, if consciousness is infinite, isn’t a infinite of ways of making art?! I can’t imagine what other planet’s and galaxies’s art look like with materials that we don’t know yet!, assuming ofc there is life out there. 

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, illusory said:

I think legally it will be fine, as the AI is generating something new by mixing and mashing, worse case scenario i think fair use will prevail here.

Legally things are a bit more complicated, because how you described it is not really how it is done. The AI does not look at an image and use it to generate a certain result, rather, the developers of the AI used certain images to create a certain machine learning system which is capable of the given result.

 

 

I've been experimenting with them for the past few weeks and there are very clear limitations to these AI's. Fundamentally, they are not imitating the process of art creation, as that on average requires a different set of cognition than what is simulated here. Rather, they are imitating or accessing a kind of intuitive impressionistic visualization. I'm too lazy to go into detail, but in my estimation it's probably similar to what the brain does during dreaming or mind's eye activity, far less sophisticated due to lacking in dimensions, but doing what it is doing much better and clearer. Imagine it the difference between a mathematician and a calculator. Sure, the calculator can do certain things much faster and easier, but it is fundmanetally doing something different than a mathematician when she contemplates the nature of math. But on the other hand, calculators can certainly do things no human can do, atleast not in the same span of time, which is precisely why they seem so impressive.

 

I am kind of frustrated in how limited these are because I was hoping to use them for some projects, and I don't think these limitations will ever get resolved due to the above mentioned nature of these machines. At least not with the current approach, and I also suspect that the very nature of the hardware will be the limiting factor. I think there are going to be some really cool use cases for artist in regards to their painting process but I suspect that it is going to take some years if not decades for this to actually get standardized and interesting for everyone.

Maybe one day I will be able to feed it images of my style and it'll be able to help me create images faster, that would be super cool.

 

Img2img is also super interesting but also kind of limited. Been working with concept artists and tinkering around, and you can get some really, really good results when you use sketches and let the AI "finish" them with it's own interpretation of what it is seeing. I kind of don't like it because it's hard to uphold a flow state and it is kind of ADHD inducing for me, but in terms of output, this will definitely change the industry. You can take a very rough design thumbnail and get hundreds of images, variations of that thumbnail with the style you want. It does feel cheap because you can just take your design and turn it a design that will look like it came from Ruan Jia, but I would not say it can even remotely replace the complete design process, simply because of the lack of coherence and design purpose.

This will replace a lot of jobs simply because the best artists will be able to output much more, and it will probably influence what kind of styles will proliferate in the future (kind of how we don't have 2d animation disney movies anymore because of how expensive they were), but if you think you'll be able to keep up, as a layman, with someone like Craig Mullins, because you can turn a prompt into a visualization, you are just delusional. I've seen some mindblowing stuff from artists who are integrating this into their work process, these guys were just supercharged onto a new level.

 

It certainly alleviates a bit of the craftsmanship for certain styles of digital painting. But it does not replace things like design and composition whatsoever. Everything that takes a certain degree of intentionality and sophistication of coherence will still require a human mind.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

   I feel like we are inevitably going to destroy ourselves if we can't properly manage A.I programs. They are evolving way too fast for us to keep pace. We might end up like the video below:

   Wake up, before A.I completely takes you over.

[LordFall]

On 4/9/2022 at 11:11 AM, Space said:

I suspect that animation and manga studios will be one of the least affected by A.I. art generators. Creating complex animations, manga, anime are an extremely nuanced process. For example, the art director will often need a very specific facial expression, very specific body position and a very specific camera position, not to mention all of the other elements within the frame. There is a distinct communication problem with AI also. I think it will hit a ceiling where it just cannot produce the subtle changes and details required for something like a manga or anime. AI's don't listen or understand prompts like humans do. For example, the art director might give feedback to an illustrator saying, 'I want the character to have just a bit more frustration in his expression, and his head is titled upwards away from the camera slightly in x direction.'

They could definitely be used for inspiration, idea generation, character design etc.

That's a weird take, I'd say that's the first field to be meaningfully affected. The AI learns from scanning and repeating things millions of times, outputting the same face with different facial expressions is gonna be one of the simplest things to do. 

[LordFall]

On 11/9/2022 at 8:28 AM, Danioover9000 said:

@illusory

   My personal take, I absolutely agree! It's my value and standards, but you should never call yourself an artist if you haven't actually created the image in the first place. I really hate when people do that, take another artist's image and call it their own under other forms of legal conditions, when technically that art never was created by the person, but was taken and put on videos, websites or other by the person. That's the other feeling I get when I see A.I. doing the drawings instead of you, it's sacrilege to obfuscate your drawing talent to a robot! Whoever disagrees with this strongly, is a leech and a thief and has low standards for being an artist.

Your arbitrary standards and moral outrage are useless and are better disregarded if you wanna end up producing true value for humanity instead of holding onto an archaic skill. Your "art" is not valuable because it's hard to do, it can only be valuable if people value it.

Organizing grains of sand by size and shape would be hard but not particularly useful nor a worthwhile thing to dedicate your life to. 

[Leo Gura]

Some of you guys here are missing the big picture.

In the big picture, everything in society is constantly evolving in radical ways. No job or business is ever secure. All jobs and businesses require evolution, or you go extinct. So this AI stuff is just the natural evolution towards greater things. Rather than resisting it and being upset, embrace the change and adapt to turn it into your strength rather than your weakness.

This is how technology has always worked. Nothing new here. Every technology that makes life easier puts someone out of business. The name of the game is to avoid becoming obsolete by adapting in creative and intelligent ways. Stay competitive by becoming more intelligent and valuable.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[thepixelmonk]

There are a few true artists in this thread who are already using this technology to further their love and skill for their craft. The rest of you need to stop being naive and adapt.

[Danioover9000]

@LordFall

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

Your arbitrary standards and moral outrage are useless and are better disregarded if you wanna end up producing true value for humanity instead of holding onto an archaic skill. Your "art" is not valuable because it's hard to do, it can only be valuable if people value it.

Organizing grains of sand by size and shape would be hard but not particularly useful nor a worthwhile thing to dedicate your life to. 

   Am I producing true art, when I'm reacting to a YouTube content creator's video? Am I producing true value, when I use an A.I program, that takes thousands of images online, some under copywrite law, and lie that I made that work, when the A.I did 80% work from taking other's works together?

[Danioover9000]

@thepixelmonk

5 hours ago, thepixelmonk said:

There are a few true artists in this thread who are already using this technology to further their love and skill for their craft. The rest of you need to stop being naive and adapt.

   Just because some artists use the program, doesn't mean it's ethical to do so. For one, we don't know that some of the total gathered images, are past works protected under copywrite law. Most artists don't know if their digitally saved images are being taken by the program through open source. And two, you are not improving your artistic skills much, other than practicing how to prompt and command around a program. Same reasoning is used when a chess player cheats at chess, same reasoning for YouTube reactors stealing content from other YouTube content creators.

   All you artists, don't be shady. Pick that pen up, don't be lazy.

[ZzzleepingBear]

34 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@LordFall

   Am I producing true art, when I'm reacting to a YouTube content creator's video? Am I producing true value, when I use an A.I program, that takes thousands of images online, some under copywrite law, and lie that I made that work, when the A.I did 80% work from taking other's works together?

It's the art of laziness and deceit.

[Leo Gura]

A human artist's brain is a neural network which contains thousands of reference images and ideas which were copied from culture and other artists. It then remixes those to create original works. Not only do you copy from other artists, you copy from nature. Even your DNA is just a remix of copies from your parents.

So by demonizing this AI as a copycat, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

There is no creativity without diverse, intermixed input. One of the most important things a good artist does is imbibe lots of diverse source material, because it's necessary to fuel the neural network.

It would behoove you "artists" to contemplate more deeply how your art is sourced.

#StopAIRacism

Edited September 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[ZzzleepingBear]

Those who consider auto rendered AI images that are based soley on other artists prior work as their own art and proclaim themselves as a creative genius. Are not more creative than those who are reselling stolen goods and happen to get away with it. 

[Leo Gura]

@ZzzleepingBear Have you ever heard of stock photography? Most images used by businesses and on YT are stock photos and stock art, which literally means they are taken from artists.

Most of business runs off stock photo databases.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[bazera]

Someone on Midjourney Discord server made a comic with it. This is awesome

[LordFall]

4 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@LordFall

   Am I producing true art, when I'm reacting to a YouTube content creator's video? Am I producing true value, when I use an A.I program, that takes thousands of images online, some under copywrite law, and lie that I made that work, when the A.I did 80% work from taking other's works together?

Well yes actually, if you add your original thoughts/edits to it then you're creating your art. Its then subjected to the market, just as any and every other commodity, idea or creation that we have.