The artist Refik Anadol did a cool exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC in 2022-2023 called Unsupervised where they fed the entire museum collection to an AI and just let it riff for a year in a room while people watched. *shrug* I thought that was a neat experience.
winplaceshow wrote:
The artist Refik Anadol did a cool exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC in 2022-2023 called Unsupervised where they fed the entire museum collection to an AI and just let it riff for a year in a room while people watched. *shrug* I thought that was a neat experience.
This is very cool. I do think it's reductive to say that generative AI has no artistic potential or can't be used to make art. This is a great example of a thought-provoking and artistic use case. But the average prompt probably doesn't meet the criteria for artistic expression.
Ben wrote:
Original Sin
Setting the law aside, generative AI image creators were created in a way that is fundamentally against the spirit of copyright and fair use. The creators of these models knew what they were attempting to create; a tool capable of replacing art and artists in the market. In service of this goal, they copied work without authorization.
Setting the law aside, generative AI image creators were created in a way that is fundamentally against the spirit of copyright and fair use. The creators of these models knew what they were attempting to create; a tool capable of replacing art and artists in the market. In service of this goal, they copied work without authorization.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." - Carl Sagan
Quote:
God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
These AI guys can go find their own dirt.
Aardbei wrote:
Ben wrote:
Original Sin
Setting the law aside, generative AI image creators were created in a way that is fundamentally against the spirit of copyright and fair use. The creators of these models knew what they were attempting to create; a tool capable of replacing art and artists in the market. In service of this goal, they copied work without authorization.
Setting the law aside, generative AI image creators were created in a way that is fundamentally against the spirit of copyright and fair use. The creators of these models knew what they were attempting to create; a tool capable of replacing art and artists in the market. In service of this goal, they copied work without authorization.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." - Carl Sagan
Quote:
God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
These AI guys can go find their own dirt.
Ha, excellent reference!
Ai art is good when it is experienced. But regularly. No. It's not. T^T
Alliyus wrote:
Ai art is good when it is experienced. But regularly. No. It's not. T^T
easier for it to slip through experienced eyes too
ᵘʳ ᵖᶠᵖ ᶦˢ ᵃᶦ...
Eh... I don't mind it. I only have a problem with it when the artist starts using images that they did not have clear permissions to use and sell the generated artworks for profit without giving due credit to the artists' works that the AI artist uses.
I'm honestly thinking of starting to use it to generate mostly background images that I can use as references or sketch it out in my art (of course I would use pictures that are in the public domain license). And like my good friend Kruhee, I would want to use it for my character profiles as well, for noncommercial reasons. I'm starting to realize that character art for roleplaying takes time. Time I have so little of now. Art can't be rushed and I have little time. So I want to focus my art instead on working on my story and use AI generated artworks for some of my characters. I'm thinking of starting this path soon.
(Also there's so much of it now that I can recognize somewhat if it's AI or not. I look at the hands, the style of the image, I look if the clothing extends to the skin like the stripes of socks extending to the thighs by accident, and the proportions of the figure of the person, this one is a big one because some artists I know that use AI, like Shadiversity, doesn't know how to proportion their characters well, like all of the girls Shad makes are very... large headed than normal.)
I'm honestly thinking of starting to use it to generate mostly background images that I can use as references or sketch it out in my art (of course I would use pictures that are in the public domain license). And like my good friend Kruhee, I would want to use it for my character profiles as well, for noncommercial reasons. I'm starting to realize that character art for roleplaying takes time. Time I have so little of now. Art can't be rushed and I have little time. So I want to focus my art instead on working on my story and use AI generated artworks for some of my characters. I'm thinking of starting this path soon.
(Also there's so much of it now that I can recognize somewhat if it's AI or not. I look at the hands, the style of the image, I look if the clothing extends to the skin like the stripes of socks extending to the thighs by accident, and the proportions of the figure of the person, this one is a big one because some artists I know that use AI, like Shadiversity, doesn't know how to proportion their characters well, like all of the girls Shad makes are very... large headed than normal.)
You seem to misunderstand how much choice a user has in what gets referenced and what gets generated. 
Might want to read back through the thread a bit.
Might want to read back through the thread a bit.
Torag1000 wrote:
Eh... I don't mind it. I only have a problem with it when the artist starts using images that they did not have clear permissions to use and sell the generated artworks for profit without giving due credit to the artists' works that the AI artist uses.
I'm honestly thinking of starting to use it to generate mostly background images that I can use as references or sketch it out in my art (of course I would use pictures that are in the public domain license). And like my good friend Kruhee, I would want to use it for my character profiles as well, for noncommercial reasons. I'm starting to realize that character art for roleplaying takes time. Time I have so little of now. Art can't be rushed and I have little time. So I want to focus my art instead on working on my story and use AI generated artworks for some of my characters. I'm thinking of starting this path soon.
(Also there's so much of it now that I can recognize somewhat if it's AI or not. I look at the hands, the style of the image, I look if the clothing extends to the skin like the stripes of socks extending to the thighs by accident, and the proportions of the figure of the person, this one is a big one because some artists I know that use AI, like Shadiversity, doesn't know how to proportion their characters well, like all of the girls Shad makes are very... large headed than normal.)
I'm honestly thinking of starting to use it to generate mostly background images that I can use as references or sketch it out in my art (of course I would use pictures that are in the public domain license). And like my good friend Kruhee, I would want to use it for my character profiles as well, for noncommercial reasons. I'm starting to realize that character art for roleplaying takes time. Time I have so little of now. Art can't be rushed and I have little time. So I want to focus my art instead on working on my story and use AI generated artworks for some of my characters. I'm thinking of starting this path soon.
(Also there's so much of it now that I can recognize somewhat if it's AI or not. I look at the hands, the style of the image, I look if the clothing extends to the skin like the stripes of socks extending to the thighs by accident, and the proportions of the figure of the person, this one is a big one because some artists I know that use AI, like Shadiversity, doesn't know how to proportion their characters well, like all of the girls Shad makes are very... large headed than normal.)
Might I interest you in Picrew or Heroforge?
Or just jack some sprites from old video games off Google and splice those together like we did in the good old days. You think my Furcadia dreams were custom art? Nope.
The problem with using AI for this is that AI art becomes indexed in search engines and parts of the model are fed back into the algorithm to assist in its training model. It picks up on keywords people frequently use and trains itself to create better results. AI creates a real problem for people besides you when you use it because of how many search results in Google are AI now.
AI is just photobashing but worse, honestly. I don't consider photobashing art either and don't have much respect for it as an assistant in art people post to bolster their portfolio (Learn to draw your own backgrounds, you plebs!) but it's a skill you can learn and produces better results than an AI can in probably about the time it takes the AI to generate 50 images and have you pick from those.
TL;DR there are alternative image generators that don't make the internet worse for everyone, including just learning to kitbash yourself and get a result that is closer to what you want.
Aardbei wrote:
Might I interest you in Picrew or Heroforge?
Or just jack some sprites from old video games off Google and splice those together like we did in the good old days. You think my Furcadia dreams were custom art? Nope.
The problem with using AI for this is that AI art becomes indexed in search engines and parts of the model are fed back into the algorithm to assist in its training model. It picks up on keywords people frequently use and trains itself to create better results. AI creates a real problem for people besides you when you use it because of how many search results in Google are AI now.
AI is just photobashing but worse, honestly. I don't consider photobashing art either and don't have much respect for it as an assistant in art people post to bolster their portfolio (Learn to draw your own backgrounds, you plebs!) but it's a skill you can learn and produces better results than an AI can in probably about the time it takes the AI to generate 50 images and have you pick from those.
TL;DR there are alternative image generators that don't make the internet worse for everyone, including just learning to kitbash yourself and get a result that is closer to what you want.
Or just jack some sprites from old video games off Google and splice those together like we did in the good old days. You think my Furcadia dreams were custom art? Nope.
The problem with using AI for this is that AI art becomes indexed in search engines and parts of the model are fed back into the algorithm to assist in its training model. It picks up on keywords people frequently use and trains itself to create better results. AI creates a real problem for people besides you when you use it because of how many search results in Google are AI now.
AI is just photobashing but worse, honestly. I don't consider photobashing art either and don't have much respect for it as an assistant in art people post to bolster their portfolio (Learn to draw your own backgrounds, you plebs!) but it's a skill you can learn and produces better results than an AI can in probably about the time it takes the AI to generate 50 images and have you pick from those.
TL;DR there are alternative image generators that don't make the internet worse for everyone, including just learning to kitbash yourself and get a result that is closer to what you want.
Never heard of Picrew. I'll check it out. I heard of HeroForge, but I'm never really interested in it.
Lol, I remember my sister doing that when she was young, making pixelated sprites of dolls. Not the same as the Spriters Resource, but similar.
Also I'm not really a furry so I don't know what this Furcadia thing is.
Hmm, reading what you said, you make a good point. I never really thought of it that way. I thought the data being indexed was mostly search results of some people that advertisers can use to advertise their products to the person that searches up a certain object and products of the certain object is all they see on the sides now.
Hmm, I think I'll just learn to kitbash myself rather than rely on some AI generators that don't seem to work well for what I actually want to use for noncommercial reasons. I know of some games like the old Flash game of The Last Stand that uses kitbashing of pictures to make the game and its art assets since the creator didn't like the style that Flash Games back then were going for. Thanks!
Torag1000 wrote:
Also I'm not really a furry so I don't know what this Furcadia thing is.
Despite, the name, Furcadia was a lot more than just furries (though it was probably mostly furries?). I never used it myself, but a lot of the older (at least in terms of account age) folks on this site have, plenty with characters who have no animal features at all. Seems like it was sort of like part virtual hangout maps, part RP? And I guess folks were able to create their own unique maps with custom functions and stuff, pouring as much work into a totally unique thing as they wanted, pretty much. Even had its own scripting language.
I might be totally wrong, but from what I've seen, it was sort of like having RPG Maker, with all its tools and customization, as an MMO.
Zelphyr wrote:
Torag1000 wrote:
Also I'm not really a furry so I don't know what this Furcadia thing is.
Despite, the name, Furcadia was a lot more than just furries (though it was probably mostly furries?). I never used it myself, but a lot of the older (at least in terms of account age) folks on this site have, plenty with characters who have no animal features at all. Seems like it was sort of like part virtual hangout maps, part RP? And I guess folks were able to create their own unique maps with custom functions and stuff, pouring as much work into a totally unique thing as they wanted, pretty much. Even had its own scripting language.
I might be totally wrong, but from what I've seen, it was sort of like having RPG Maker, with all its tools and customization, as an MMO.
Yeah something like that.
The actual tools were great. I loved making stuff in it.
I know this is dead, but I thought I would throw my own two cents in here.
I see literally 0 benefit to using AI art that outweighs it's negatives.
I have already began seeing people refer to artists as "Legacy Artists" and treating their jobs like shit that deserves to be replaced. I feel like now more than ever we need people to support actual artists than AI art.
I know everyone cannot afford actual art, but maybe you have a friend that does art that would be willing to do requests and if not there are paper dolls and character creators stretching back to the earliest days of the internet. Plus, I am sure a simple description could suffice for most.
Please, just do anything else rather than use AI generators.
I see literally 0 benefit to using AI art that outweighs it's negatives.
I have already began seeing people refer to artists as "Legacy Artists" and treating their jobs like shit that deserves to be replaced. I feel like now more than ever we need people to support actual artists than AI art.
I know everyone cannot afford actual art, but maybe you have a friend that does art that would be willing to do requests and if not there are paper dolls and character creators stretching back to the earliest days of the internet. Plus, I am sure a simple description could suffice for most.
Please, just do anything else rather than use AI generators.
I think AI should only be using as a stepping stone or something to temporarily help (for example, character refs to get real art from real artists so you can get rid of said AI refs), not a final product or to-sell thing.
I see FNAF merch on Amazon that is clearly AI and it's terrible, and I've seen a few things on ETSY of "Cartoon-fying your characters" (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact listing names) and it's of AI, and sadly people have bought it and is like "Oh wow! They did a great job!" but it is clearly AI, because looking in the backgrounds, you see characters warped and disfigured, like in AI generated art.
I see FNAF merch on Amazon that is clearly AI and it's terrible, and I've seen a few things on ETSY of "Cartoon-fying your characters" (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact listing names) and it's of AI, and sadly people have bought it and is like "Oh wow! They did a great job!" but it is clearly AI, because looking in the backgrounds, you see characters warped and disfigured, like in AI generated art.
I will also throw my 2 cents in here!
AI has the capability to be good for many things, but when it comes to art it it stealing art from random people on the internet. The moment we post an unglazed or unprotected image of anything it is free range for an AI to take and use. That is something that NEEDS to be changed, because as previous users have said that can lead to nothing but harm done.
Now from a full artist perspective AI can be easily spotted, and there are hundreds of threads on Twitter talking about it and using many examples. It is also terrifying to think that if someone wanted they could just grab a few pieces I have made, fed them into an AI, and almost completely copy my style I worked for years on. Mimicking the hours I have spent on drawings, commissions, emotes, icons, anything to just a few seconds or minutes of a code running to put me on the chopping block.
A lot of artists have commissions open, ranging from cheap to more expensive. Sometimes they even have requests open, which I will always think find an artist before resorting to AI.
AI has the capability to be good for many things, but when it comes to art it it stealing art from random people on the internet. The moment we post an unglazed or unprotected image of anything it is free range for an AI to take and use. That is something that NEEDS to be changed, because as previous users have said that can lead to nothing but harm done.
Now from a full artist perspective AI can be easily spotted, and there are hundreds of threads on Twitter talking about it and using many examples. It is also terrifying to think that if someone wanted they could just grab a few pieces I have made, fed them into an AI, and almost completely copy my style I worked for years on. Mimicking the hours I have spent on drawings, commissions, emotes, icons, anything to just a few seconds or minutes of a code running to put me on the chopping block.
A lot of artists have commissions open, ranging from cheap to more expensive. Sometimes they even have requests open, which I will always think find an artist before resorting to AI.
Much like Sanne, I'm drawn to the intricacies of AI. When harnessed correctly, its capabilities are awe-inspiring. Yet, when mishandled, it can evoke the very fears many harbor. Nonetheless, at its core, it remains a neutral tool. Personally, I see tremendous promise within its applications. However, there's a palpable need to address the concerns of fellow creatives. The strategies to address these concerns elude me; I'm simply an observer, not an AI engineer. Nonetheless, I hold a deep appreciation for AI as yet another facet of human ingenuity.
As for the ethical side of things...
AI art generators themselves don't steal art, as they are tools created by developers to generate new images or artworks based on input data or algorithms. However, there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI-generated art when it closely resembles existing artworks, raising questions about originality and intellectual property rights.
Sometimes, AI-generated art can produce images that closely resemble existing works, leading to accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement. This issue raises complex legal and ethical questions about the ownership and originality of art produced by AI systems. Additionally, the data used to train AI models can also raise questions about ownership and rights, especially if copyrighted material is used without proper authorization.
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring that AI-generated art respects copyright and intellectual property laws lies with the developers and users of these systems. Clear guidelines and ethical standards need to be established to address these concerns and ensure that AI-generated art respects the rights of original creators.
As for the ethical side of things...
AI art generators themselves don't steal art, as they are tools created by developers to generate new images or artworks based on input data or algorithms. However, there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI-generated art when it closely resembles existing artworks, raising questions about originality and intellectual property rights.
Sometimes, AI-generated art can produce images that closely resemble existing works, leading to accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement. This issue raises complex legal and ethical questions about the ownership and originality of art produced by AI systems. Additionally, the data used to train AI models can also raise questions about ownership and rights, especially if copyrighted material is used without proper authorization.
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring that AI-generated art respects copyright and intellectual property laws lies with the developers and users of these systems. Clear guidelines and ethical standards need to be established to address these concerns and ensure that AI-generated art respects the rights of original creators.
Just as a side note, someone posted a very explicative comic on the side of why AI art is actually not stealing, and how it can be used effectively as a tool, and not as the end result: here
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Just as a side note, someone posted a very explicative comic on the side of why AI art is actually not stealing, and how it can be used effectively as a tool, and not as the end result: here
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
The creator does address both sides on whether AI is considered theft or not (he acknowledges that acquiring permission for training models would be preferred, but that it would also be impossible for the millions of images needed), just that his own personal method for use isn't.
I have to say that I don't agree with the sentiment that if it were excluded from local sourcing that it would only be available for corporate interests. Honestly, with the cost of the product(s) and the technology requirements to even host and use one of these generative engines, I'd posit that it's already fairly exclusive. The fact that there's so many sites now that offer the average person the ability to generate X-number of pieces a day, or as many for X-number of on-site currency (that you pay real money to gain more of), I personally think the average person is exploited more than the alternative you're suggesting and agree would be arguably better - a true open-source, equally accessible resource for image generation.
Like you said, you can't force people to pay for art. But I suppose this way you can charge them for the simulated experience of 'creating' it themselves.
Alternatively, if a corporation like Disney wanted to put out its own image creation system that was trained entirely on their catalogue where users could create art in Disney owned styles? I wouldn't have a single issue with that.
I appreciate the creator's transparency. It's better to state AI was used as a tool in creation rather that obfuscate that fact for pride or whatever reasons. Yet whenever I see comics like these where someone is up on a soapbox, I have to wonder what the purpose is behind such a thing. I think he mentions it rather blatantly himself: Who is he trying to convince with all this? Possibly no one but himself.
To end this pseudo-thoughtful analysis by wrapping it back around to your main point: Corporations are always going to be looking for ways to not have to pay their talent appropriately. Look at all the lay-offs in the AAA game design sector this year as just one example of that. I don't think championing image generative AI as the solution to this abuse is a genuine argument in its favor in the least. Especially as the folks who would employ its use would still also be choosing these engines in favor of paying actual artists instead.
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Just as a side note, someone posted a very explicative comic on the side of why AI art is actually not stealing, and how it can be used effectively as a tool, and not as the end result: here
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
I encourage you to watch this.
Sanne wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Just as a side note, someone posted a very explicative comic on the side of why AI art is actually not stealing, and how it can be used effectively as a tool, and not as the end result: here
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
I encourage you to watch this.
That's an incredibly more succinct way of saying what I wanted to. What a useful video I'm now going to keep on hand for this topic going forward lol
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Dragonfire, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus