darkSpyro

What's your opinion on AI art?
I use pretty much every "cheating" method like photobashing, 3d modeling, etc but Ai art seems honestly kinda useless, at least at the moment. I see a lot people saying it will get way better but I'm pretty skeptical on it's use in actual productions and whatnot, I think it's going to stay way too inconsistent for practical uses for a long while. Even if it does make an impact, I hope it makes those generic semi realistic girl portraits become less popular, as that seems to be the only thing people post from it.

All you need to know is that they want to commercialize AI art but they don't want to commercialize AI music, because they could get sued.

Doesn't matter if it'll improve when it's built on the backs of actual artists. They only like to steal works from folks that can't fight back.

I don't think it'll replace people drawing art because one has emotions and the other is an algorithm. Tech wise I think it's insane and it can be a really cool tool for people to use like how 3d modeling is used which people didn't like back then. It's just too bad right now it's all about stealing art

Quote: Bifrost

All you need to know is that they want to commercialize AI art but they don't want to commercialize AI music, because they could get sued.

Doesn't matter if it'll improve when it's built on the backs of actual artists. They only like to steal works from folks that can't fight back.

This is true, a lot of people even input actual artist's name into the keyword field. I think there's an argument that can be made when it's an amalgamation of art, but most art I see is directly ripping of Sakimichan/Axsens/etc and using them as a keyword, that has to be going too far even for soulless techbros.


Quote: somePerson

I don't think it'll replace people drawing art because one has emotions and the other is an algorithm. Tech wise I think it's insane and it can be a really cool tool for people to use like how 3d modeling is used which people didn't like back then. It's just too bad right now it's all about stealing art

Yep, Ai art tends to lean too generic as it's all algorythmic. That said, I can definitely see it being used to generate smaller assets and textures in the future. I also hope AI can make retopology not awful in the future lmao.

the technology will improve and it will become a bigger problem.... really its mostly just a problem i guess when its like..................stealing other peoples art? probably wont replace normal art yet im still confused by it some AI art is actually very good you wouldnt be able to tell otherwise that it wasnt AI probably like with everything else we will just have to learn to exist with it

Well I guess I can write novel on this crock of bull**** tech.

1. It's not going to replace artists.
Unless you are a literal crypto bro sociopath, that needs to breathe O2 outside for once. You're still going to pay artists for your furry or other non-sense art. because AI is not getting everything right. No amount of tries is going to get your nsfw art right, you need to learn how to draw that yourselves.

2. Artwork uploaded is not "fair use" on using it in AI programs
For that we discuss "Fair use" which is transforming a art piece into another art piece to convey something else or critique it out right. It's not copy paste and it's the same thing with the filter over it. To say "Everyone's artwork uploaded is automatically fair use" just goes to show that people don't know what the hell they are saying and were never considering being an artist. It's kind of in the similar vein of youtubers being full time wrestlers, kind of a mockery on the actual field. With the "Where's the fair use" movement it was wondering why fair use is infringed upon when the commentators actually do commentate on the scene and putting their bit and audio in the video. Like it's not just reuploading the film or show just flipped. It is critiquing the writing. AI doesn't know how to critique or make new pieces without directly copying works uploaded already. It just merges pieces with in the sentence prompt, so little difference that people are able to pull up which art pieces it took from. Which is a massive yikes.

3. It doesn't make more artists.
We're going there, it's basically a tool akin to dA bases at best. At worst it's completely useless garbage. Pick up a pen and stop being a pretentious AI bro. You'd be surprised at how many times I argued with clowns on twitter and discord that AI is garbage and you need to pick up a pen and do draw or writing to be an artist. It's literally like getting your mom to draw your gingerbread man for you in elementary school. Cool mom to help out, but it's not your artwork. You simply ask mommy AI to help. Actually the best aged argument against AI is it's literally the "make art button" that extreme traditionalists and people not understanding digital art, yell about.

4. Disabled people never needed AI to make art.
In fact most artists out there rn have some form of disability. Mental or physical really doesn't matter. They did not mommy AI in the 90's and beyond (in fact we just now got them). They still don't need em now. Honest to god, they are too powerful for AI. They literally work around or work with what they can do and that's super dope. Love that kind of story. I've seen people argue that it might help the disabled but like... No. Not really. Especially if they don't have a computer. Though it's a argument made by fully able people to act lazy, like the kind that probably unironically say "But the crips!" when referring to disabled people. Ya know, that kind of entitlement.


Honestly AI "Artists" are up there with Crypto bros (if not already are). Where I point and laugh that they don't know **** about art or how to actually make it. If anything it's going to lead to laws on art and copyright of it, especially when it comes to fair use. So when the AI art thieves get fined by the dozens I am actually going to point and laugh harder at them like I did with Crypto bros when they lose their ape pictures. Very much hate them.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Well I guess I can write novel on this crock of bull**** tech.

1. It's not going to replace artists.
Unless you are a literal crypto bro sociopath, that needs to breathe O2 outside for once. You're still going to pay artists for your furry or other non-sense art. because AI is not getting everything right. No amount of tries is going to get your nsfw art right, you need to learn how to draw that yourselves.

2. Artwork uploaded is not "fair use" on using it in AI programs
For that we discuss "Fair use" which is transforming a art piece into another art piece to convey something else or critique it out right. It's not copy paste and it's the same thing with the filter over it. To say "Everyone's artwork uploaded is automatically fair use" just goes to show that people don't know what the hell they are saying and were never considering being an artist. It's kind of in the similar vein of youtubers being full time wrestlers, kind of a mockery on the actual field. With the "Where's the fair use" movement it was wondering why fair use is infringed upon when the commentators actually do commentate on the scene and putting their bit and audio in the video. Like it's not just reuploading the film or show just flipped. It is critiquing the writing. AI doesn't know how to critique or make new pieces without directly copying works uploaded already. It just merges pieces with in the sentence prompt, so little difference that people are able to pull up which art pieces it took from. Which is a massive yikes.

3. It doesn't make more artists.
We're going there, it's basically a tool akin to dA bases at best. At worst it's completely useless garbage. Pick up a pen and stop being a pretentious AI bro. You'd be surprised at how many times I argued with clowns on twitter and discord that AI is garbage and you need to pick up a pen and do draw or writing to be an artist. It's literally like getting your mom to draw your gingerbread man for you in elementary school. Cool mom to help out, but it's not your artwork. You simply ask mommy AI to help. Actually the best aged argument against AI is it's literally the "make art button" that extreme traditionalists and people not understanding digital art, yell about.

4. Disabled people never needed AI to make art.
In fact most artists out there rn have some form of disability. Mental or physical really doesn't matter. They did not mommy AI in the 90's and beyond (in fact we just now got them). They still don't need em now. Honest to god, they are too powerful for AI. They literally work around or work with what they can do and that's super dope. Love that kind of story. I've seen people argue that it might help the disabled but like... No. Not really. Especially if they don't have a computer. Though it's a argument made by fully able people to act lazy, like the kind that probably unironically say "But the crips!" when referring to disabled people. Ya know, that kind of entitlement.

Honestly AI "Artists" are up there with Crypto bros (if not already are). Where I point and laugh that they don't know **** about art or how to actually make it. If anything it's going to lead to laws on art and copyright of it, especially when it comes to fair use. So when the AI art thieves get fined by the dozens I am actually going to point and laugh harder at them like I did with Crypto bros when they lose their ape pictures. Very much hate them.

3. how does someone even try to argue it can make more artists lol.... literally it is just someone plugging keywords into a robot going boop boop and shooting something out they didnt make it themselves and the AI barely made it themselves

4. disabled artist here and ai totally agree with this we do not need AI to make are i have issues that make art very difficult for me and 2 of my fav artists 1 as a kid was almost 90 percent blind i think and made it work and one i know more recently has a super crippling mental problem that makes art an extremely difficult task to work with but draws more beautifully then most artists without a disability so again i agree that argument for AI holds no weight whatsoever.

3. You'd be surprised on twitter. Same person I argued with tried saying "Artists using references is stealing" which ya know the appropriate response to that argument to me was well really rude, but the rest was "Clearly you never been an artist or in art circles". Like there's a massive jump between referencing, inspiration, and stealing.

4. Yeah. Honestly to add on. Therapists recommend like art as a form of calming down, or venting. I don't think they are gonna recommend AI generators on that because those can't convey certain messages through out the art piece.

3. wow twitter you probably right and yeah no way to that guy referencing is entirely different its not even in the scope of being the same idea of AI reference or not it requires work and actually creating something and people like that yeah no clearly have not been in art cicrles and gropus or know about the art world in general that was ridiculous

4. yeah that too EXACTLY! AI cant do that it really at least to me couldnt be of use therapeutically.

i really dislike it for personal reasons i wont go into

AI wins "cloud final fantasy 7"

I think AI art if used correctly, could be used to concept something you want to visualise, and will certainly be utilised by people who both can't art nor pay for it.

It won't replace artists, as you don't have complete control over the positioning or finer details in AI art. Especially if the artist or commissioner wants specific details in specific places.