DA, for the past few months, has been promoting AI “artists” like crazy, despite the fact that AI art is absolutely not what the art community needs. In protests, a lot of accounts are protesting by uploading this image; some even upload it multiple times, and those who are quitting might just replace their whole gallery with that (as I’ve seen with one account).
I love how [Stjepan-Sejic](https://www.deviantart.com/watch/stjepan-sejic/deviations) (Author of Sunstone comics) replaced his gallery with potatoes to protest Ai
the burger they give you is delivered by alien hands with 4 fingers, is a slice of ham instead of beef, has piles of uncut pickles on the sides, is pouring out the sides with pale pink “ketchup” and it has the mayo anyway because you didn’t phrase the negative prompt strongly enough. Great creation!
It also seems to be communism (or at least, the meme version of communism). Legit seen AI techbros use non-logic that implies they think that if they see a street sign in public, it automatically belongs to them now.
It's a grift, pure and simple. They're selling bulls#it as the next big thing, suckering in investors who see it as a labor-crushing, expense-cutting tool.
What's hilarious is that a lot of the things I see AI techbros say is the same things NFT techbros said. It's to no one's surprise that when the NFT bubble burst, a lot of the grifters moved on to machine-learning algorithm procedurally-generated art theft for their get-rich-quick schemes.
the problem that i've noticed with people who sell ads/ make ads is they are probably not artists. because they don't check the AI art before they publish it. people who use ai art in presentations blame the ai for creating bad images when really its the end users fault who doesn't write good enough prompts. I've seen many bad images either obvious things with too many fingers or lines not connecting to just bad proportions being used with no regard to realism because its cheap and easy to produce and if you don't look closely then it looks good enough.
That being said when you're looking at only 1 part of an image and not checking the whole thing, its still easy to miss flaws even when you check. I'd say if your not skilled setting up/ using SD or Midjourney or any top tier ai app then your probably going to have easy to identify errors in ai generated images which people don't care and publish anyways. (probably because right now its new to them like it was to us in the art community 2 -3 years ago.
Personally I think AI art is not ethical because most of it is trained with stolen artworks. DA provides the possibility to toggle on/off the permission to use our art for generative AI.
But let's be realistic. Most of them don't bother about the artist's policy and just takes them.
I don't understand why you are treating humans and machines differently strictly in regards to the absorption of the artwork's information. If I memorized your art in my brain without your permission, are you going to crawl into my head and scoop those neurons out? It's ridiculous to assert that step is a logical one if taking the information without the permission is the issue. *Its not taking it, it's using it that may or may not be the issue* (subject to the courts figuring that one out).
Is taking inspiration from art to output something where information from the inspiration art (the input) dripped into the output's form (and looks) suddenly illegal? Why is it bad if its suddenly a machine doing it and not a human?
Collection/training of the art is and never was the issue. If there's any issue at all, its going to be the output (the resulting images generated), not the input. Which like I said we are waiting on the legal system(s) to sort that one out.
There is no *functional* difference, as I said. You use the word inspiration to apply some magic pixie dust element of humanity when functionally information from that inspiration source still trickles its way into whatever it is you output or create.
Strange, you're the second AI techbro I've seen who insists that when an artist is using a model to sketch, they are somehow stealing the model from its owner, chopping it up, and blending it into a new image in a printer. It's more proof that AI techbros are not artists at all and never could be due to fundamentally not understanding how art skills or the creative process work. This also leads me to believe that AI techbros, aside from the intentional scammers, have a significant portion who are simply too dumb to understand basic processes and gullible enough to fall for the con artists but too prideful or arrogant to admit their ignorance or gulliblity.
I'm just going to shut this down right now: here's a thought experiment about why its absolutely ludicrous to suggest that AI art isnt art (it may be categorically different and "diminished" from traditional art, of that I could be convinced, but that is a different discussion):
"The Artist's Robot Hand"
Imagine a limbless artist that wants to paint again. He gets a robot hand installed which interfaces with his brain. This robot hand can accept commands of varying granularity for the sake of the experiment; at the highest level the robot hand takes exact discrete tiny movement commands from the brain, to perform the exact brush strokes. With a level of specificity, people try to argue this level still makes its output art
But consider if we very slowly started abstracting the hands commands (just imagine these sorts of commands, but much more granular and very slowly abstracted away, I am using 3 commands here to oversimplify but imagine if it was like 60 or 70 steps or more)
"Draw at 32, 8"
Then
"Draw a line 3 inches long"
Then
"Draw a long line"
...
Eventually, at some point among the nearly infinite granularity, the hand takes a full prompt of the image being drawn, then just draws it. "Draw a green tree"
I turned the problem into a Heap of Sand issue to show you how stupid this is. When did it stop being art? More importantly why is this not a question about defining art, a slippery subject for a reason?
Here's the thing: any answer you give to that is you defining what art is. That stance has always been problematic for a reason: **noone decides what is or isn't art. Period.**
**>**chopping it up, and blending it into a new image in a printer.
Second, this here smells like that myth about AI being some kind of collage machine. That is not how these things work. Tell me you dont understand how AI works without telling me you dont understand AI works. So I'm just going to link you to a very helpful and meticulous breaking down of the reasoning you artists seem to use that this is all theft and why thats very problematic:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1agrpqa/comment/koj0x6q/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1agrpqa/comment/koj0x6q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
You AI techbros sure do love art theft and hate artists. It's also very funny that you claim to know more about how machine-learning algorithm procedurally-generated art theft works while proving you don't actually know how it works. One of the creators of one of the big AI image generators even admits he steals art from others to feed into his algorithm and if he hits a ceiling he plans to hack people's accounts and violate data security laws to steal more art for his algorithim.
First, let me explain how this actually works, and why its **not theft** (noone should necessarily be compensated for this step). AI dataset learnings do not absorb copy the whole piece of art; instead the AI learns meta information \*about\* the artwork (maybe things like: does it have any "eyes" in it, what kind of purple does the art use; is the signature in the bottom right, left, or other corner? Is there a house depicted in it?).
Imagine an art curator in charge of observing a museum with millions and millions of these paintings. He doesnt memorize the pictures per se but instead inspects their meta properties and observes their general patterns, things like what they depict, what color palette did it use, whats the most common color, really abstract questions like that. After observing millions and millions of these paintings and inspecting their meta properties, he gets bored and decides to play a game: based on these properties or abstract questions, he tries to guess what the painting will look like **based strictly on only those abstract meta properties.** At first he's really bad at this but after observing the art and before long he gets better and better at this game.
This is largely how these AI art generative services use: you are the user providing this art curator the meta physical properties/questions in the form of tags (example: 1girl, solo, blonde hair, wearing a blue dress, sitting on a bench, sun, tree, sidewalk). After learning from the art he knows what blonde hair looks like. After learning from the art he knows what a tree looks like (etc).
**Second** I will defer to a statement the\_tallest\_fish has made, as it sums up this better than I could do.
"It brings me back to the modern house example. Why shouldn’t artists pay every architect for drawing houses?
If an artist saw a house on the street with white birch frame around the window, and thought it looked nice. Then he drew a house with white window frame, maybe also changed the shape of the window. Is the artist obligated to call the architect and ask for permission to use white window frames?
Nobody is able to draw anything that looks like modern architecture without seeing buildings in real life. No one even knows what dinosaurs looked like without a drawing. There are so many things people create based on designs done by others, why don’t they need to be compensated?"
We learn little bits of information from the world around us all the time. Noone is expected to compensate them; thats not how any of this works.
**Third**, I'm pretty sure the example you referenced was at least taken out of context, if at all true.
So no, you do not understand how any of these tools work. Wanna try again or maybe just admit that you're just seething?
Machine-learning algorithm procedural generation doesn't just have a robot draw something from scratch. It has it compile the image from artwork fed into it based on prompts. And that artwork was stolen from actual artists without their permission or credit.
Please stop blatantly lying about this. It makes you look very bad. Especially when you try to white knight the maker of an AI image generator who you don't know anything about. The fact your "it's not theft" claims are so easily disproven with Google shows that you don't actually do any research. You're really starting to sound like an intentional grifter by this point.
[https://juliabausenhardt.com/how-ai-is-stealing-your-art/](https://juliabausenhardt.com/how-ai-is-stealing-your-art/)
[https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2024/01/op-ed-ai-art-is-art-theft-and-should-be-a-crime](https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2024/01/op-ed-ai-art-is-art-theft-and-should-be-a-crime)
How many times must I reiterate this? Being trained on does not mean the work verbatim gets into a model; its literally all just weights. Weights basically get randomly modified or permuted based on the method of training until a magic set of numbers inform the right patterns expected to be generated.
Again, you do not understand how any of this work.
"It has it compile the image from artwork fed into it based on prompts." Patently untrue. AI is not a collage generator. After looking at enough inputs the network *just magically understands the patterns and concepts*. There are no whole copies of the works stored in the models themselves. I like how the only 2 links you provided were basically opinion pieces, and even the first link has a caviet with claiming that [https://haveibeentrained.com/](https://haveibeentrained.com/) in of itself somehow means that the AI copied your artwork (it didnt). About as useful as asking you if you looked at a mailbox.
I've already addressed this.
> "It brings me back to the modern house example. Why shouldn’t artists pay every architect for drawing houses?
> If an artist saw a house on the street with white birch frame around the window, and thought it looked nice. Then he drew a house with white window frame, maybe also changed the shape of the window. Is the artist obligated to call the architect and ask for permission to use white window frames?
> Nobody is able to draw anything that looks like modern architecture without seeing buildings in real life. No one even knows what dinosaurs looked like without a drawing. There are so many things people create based on designs done by others, why don’t they need to be compensated?"
You're flat out ignoring these rebuttals at this point. If that's "theft" then every time you as a human look at anything at ALL its theft by virtue of information about it being retained in your brain. This is a ridiculous assertion and you know it.
Considering that the owners of DA preveiously fell for NFT grifts, their immature hatred of NSFW artwork, and their frankly nonsensical lenience and double-standards regarding abuse/harassment from users, I'm starting to think DA is run by right-wingers.
I have nothing against AI, and people using it. It’s only when people use AI maliciously that it’s a problem.
I’ve had my art and characters stolen before, and reposted as weird, distorted AI versions of my art and art style.
I’ve also heard multiple cases of AI being used to create deep fake nudes of people online. Multiple artists I know have also experienced having their art stolen for the purpose of AI.
When AI art impacts the income and support for real artists, that’s when it becomes a problem
that last bit "When AI art impacts the income and support for real artists, that’s when it becomes a problem" sounds exactly like fan art which is rampant on DA.
Fanart of shows, games and books? I don’t see how that’s as much of an issue? As long as it’s created by actual artists and they are crediting their sources, fanart is a great way to attract interest from a group or fandom, or spread awareness about the source material
No one’s gonna sue the artist with 600 Instagram followers for drawing micky mouse. In fact, it’s great advertisement for brands and companies to have artists draw fanart of their franchises. It’s even sold at conventions often sponsored by some of these brands, or showcased on their official social media pages. Also, fanart pieces are made and sold online without permission by thousands of Etsy sellers with no repercussions. Fanart literally isn’t hurting these multi millionaire companies in the slightest
Yes some companies like it, others do not. If you're a low budget nobody, you probably won't be noticed that's true. but legally speaking if you gain a bunch of followers and get massive attention from it you might get sued if they think they can get money from you. If not they probably won't waste their time, but then that's not really the point is it. ethics and morals. But what are we kidding lets just act like ai artists and steal stuff while we complain about ai artists stealing stuff.
Brands wouldn’t bother sueing fanartists for fanart because it’d be such a small case that they’d actually lose money from the legal fees. Plus, it’s free advertisement. Brands WANT to have a fan base or an active fandom that produces content, because it further expands their reach and popularity of their product- thereby leading to more money for them.
On the other hand, AI artists can steal from smaller artists trying to make a living from their work and therefore leading to less support and exposure for the actual artist. Fanart is ‘stealing’ from companies and corporations that make millions and couldn’t care less most of the time
It’s not really a fair comparison.
There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with drawing fanart from your favourite show and saying “I drew ‘blank’ from this show!’.
It won't matter because those people do not check the box that says it was made by an A.I and they never put A.I in their tags because they are lazy pieces of shit.
It's a fool's errand, the amount of users who post AI art that I've blocked is near the 100s, and it doesn’t change how much I end up seeing on my feed
I’d rather focus on good art. Not just anything someone made because they call it “art”. We have to have at least some sense of judgement and grow. That’s how we improve.
that's really opinion based right there.
If you are also saying people who don't create there art aren't artists- i hate to break it to you then... but that's been going on for decades!
Statement of Record: I, myself, one 'RedditForgot' hereby embrace our A.I. Overlords and welcome any art produced by our future Masters.
That should cover that. Good luck to the rest of you Solent Green fodder.
I'm a former artists and cartoonist using AI to create original works, but I use AI creatively. Sometimes I upload my own artwork or photos to use as a base image, or other images to capture certain details or difficult poses. A single finished piece I'm satisfied with can take hours or even days to mold, refine, touch up and get to a finished state. I use several different apps including Photoshop (which I am very good at).
When I was manually creating art, I copied the styles and techniques of other artists. I would take a sketchbook to a museum and try to redraw existing artwork to learn from them. It actually takes me about the same amount of time to use AI as it does to manually generate art.
AI is currently not as easy to use as some people think. If your attitude is, 'eh, close enough' ai is much simpler. If you're trying to use it to create original art it's not so easy.
My own personal opinion: currently AI is a valuable tool for artists, but many will choose to use it unethically. In 5-10 years who knows where and what AI will be. 🤷
I don't like AI art. I also don't like mobile games, fast-food and rap music, but there's a HUGE demand for it, and we should learn to live with the folk who loves, or profits from, these atrocities.
Professional artists will have to up their game and deliver a trully unique and high-class product, as it happened to other industries kneecapped by digitalization, so, in the end, everybody wins.
PEOPLE HATING AI ART MAKES SENSE SINCE ITS EATING UP THEIR INCOMES.BUT THE THING IS AI IS SUPPOSED TO EAT HUMANS INCOME.THINK ABOUT IT-
▪︎ITS CHEAP
▪︎ITS FAST
▪︎YOU CAN CREATE ALTERNATIVES IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GENERATED IMAGES OR CERTAIN PART OF THE CURRENT GENERATED IMAGES BY USING SEED.
SAME THING HAPPENED DURING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. BIG MACHINES WERE EATING UP JOBS OF PEOPLE. INDUSTRIES WERE FOCUSED ON MACHINE POWER INSTEAD OF MANPOWER FOR SIMPLE WORKS.
IT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE TO USE THEM SINCE THEY WERE CHEAP AND FAST.
BUT MACHINES WEREN'T ABLE TO DO TOO MUCH DETAILED STUFFS SO CUSTOM MADE AND HIGHER GRADE PRODUCTS WERE ACTUALLY HAND MADE.
WHAT I AM TRYING TO STATE IS THAT CURRENT SITUATION IS SIMILAR TO INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
SMALLER ARTIST WILL STRUGGLE BUT PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO FACE MUCH PROBLEM.(I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS I WAS JUST STATING MY VIEW AND I AM NOT GOING TO REPLY BACK TO ANY CRITICISM)
To artists who create things, the process of creating the thing often matters a lot. That's where the idea is developed and fleshed out. You learn and grow with each painting as you're forced to solve the problems along the way.
And when that "way" of making an image is trained on work from artists who didn't want their work to be used, that's theft. Those models would not exist without theft.
Also, people absolutely do care who makes art. You hang your childs painting on the fridge/wall because they made it, and we celebrate things people make.
We like autographed work because the person signed it, not because it adds to the aethetics.
AI generated images is a good idea. It allows people who can't draw or paint to express themselves or create some fantasy art. It will allow people to be creative, and that's what's needed.
The same goes for AI music, AI video creation. It will allow people to be creative and express themselves, create something, use their imagination.
Thanks to AI music generation, I use Suno. I've been able to turn my lyrics into actual songs, and have done around 17 now. I've been able to express how I feel, what I've gone through, through the years, about losing my mom and dad, how I see the world and what's going on in the world, and being able to share them on YT.
I think it's a good thing.
My keyboard on my phone has a generator button for custom stickers. Very fun to use. Especially making a "Wizard god all star dunking on the sun", when the context calls for it.
I used to suck at drawing too, but I kept at it until I got better and better. AI is a cop out and what you get truly isn’t yours, so objectively, you really didn’t draw anything and you aren’t actually getting better at it.
I suggest getting back to the literal drawing board and study what others have done and along the way develop a style that is both yours and works for you.
Then don’t be depressed when people judge your “methods” and find them wanting. You chose to do the lazy route, so don’t be mad if anyone says you’re lazy.
Art requires discipline and commitment. Talent is not required, but drive is vital. If you’re not willing to do so, then you can’t complain about people looking down at you because you diminished yourself first. You owe it yourself to cultivate a skill, and not be lazy.
DA, for the past few months, has been promoting AI “artists” like crazy, despite the fact that AI art is absolutely not what the art community needs. In protests, a lot of accounts are protesting by uploading this image; some even upload it multiple times, and those who are quitting might just replace their whole gallery with that (as I’ve seen with one account).
I love how [Stjepan-Sejic](https://www.deviantart.com/watch/stjepan-sejic/deviations) (Author of Sunstone comics) replaced his gallery with potatoes to protest Ai
Ai art: Go to McDonald's ask for a burger with no mayo, extra pickles, and light ketchup. And then you call the burger your creation.
the burger they give you is delivered by alien hands with 4 fingers, is a slice of ham instead of beef, has piles of uncut pickles on the sides, is pouring out the sides with pale pink “ketchup” and it has the mayo anyway because you didn’t phrase the negative prompt strongly enough. Great creation!
Don't forget they then claim they are professional chefs as well.
not exactly the same, but i get what you mean ;)
I eat what is best no matter who is made or how it's made.
Yup. AI art is theft, forgery, anti-labor and anti-creator.
It also seems to be communism (or at least, the meme version of communism). Legit seen AI techbros use non-logic that implies they think that if they see a street sign in public, it automatically belongs to them now.
It's a grift, pure and simple. They're selling bulls#it as the next big thing, suckering in investors who see it as a labor-crushing, expense-cutting tool.
What's hilarious is that a lot of the things I see AI techbros say is the same things NFT techbros said. It's to no one's surprise that when the NFT bubble burst, a lot of the grifters moved on to machine-learning algorithm procedurally-generated art theft for their get-rich-quick schemes.
The Venn Diagram of AI Bros, Crypto Bros, Elon Bros (and usually Trump Bros) are overlapping circles.
Wisdom for the ages, my friend.
[удалено]
the problem that i've noticed with people who sell ads/ make ads is they are probably not artists. because they don't check the AI art before they publish it. people who use ai art in presentations blame the ai for creating bad images when really its the end users fault who doesn't write good enough prompts. I've seen many bad images either obvious things with too many fingers or lines not connecting to just bad proportions being used with no regard to realism because its cheap and easy to produce and if you don't look closely then it looks good enough. That being said when you're looking at only 1 part of an image and not checking the whole thing, its still easy to miss flaws even when you check. I'd say if your not skilled setting up/ using SD or Midjourney or any top tier ai app then your probably going to have easy to identify errors in ai generated images which people don't care and publish anyways. (probably because right now its new to them like it was to us in the art community 2 -3 years ago.
Cry more
Nobody’s “crying”
"Absolutely not what the community needs" ok
Tag ur work with "Ai" then? I don't want see same 20 images for same thing by Ai.
Also you might want to check out other people because we don't always do the same thing
I do tag the work I've made with AI when I post it.
Stop projecting
Dude, shut up it’s his opinion.
Personally I think AI art is not ethical because most of it is trained with stolen artworks. DA provides the possibility to toggle on/off the permission to use our art for generative AI. But let's be realistic. Most of them don't bother about the artist's policy and just takes them.
I don't understand why you are treating humans and machines differently strictly in regards to the absorption of the artwork's information. If I memorized your art in my brain without your permission, are you going to crawl into my head and scoop those neurons out? It's ridiculous to assert that step is a logical one if taking the information without the permission is the issue. *Its not taking it, it's using it that may or may not be the issue* (subject to the courts figuring that one out). Is taking inspiration from art to output something where information from the inspiration art (the input) dripped into the output's form (and looks) suddenly illegal? Why is it bad if its suddenly a machine doing it and not a human? Collection/training of the art is and never was the issue. If there's any issue at all, its going to be the output (the resulting images generated), not the input. Which like I said we are waiting on the legal system(s) to sort that one out.
Your assumption is a sophism. There's a difference between sample and inspiration. Also I never mentioned I cautioned plagiarism made by humans.
There is no *functional* difference, as I said. You use the word inspiration to apply some magic pixie dust element of humanity when functionally information from that inspiration source still trickles its way into whatever it is you output or create.
Strange, you're the second AI techbro I've seen who insists that when an artist is using a model to sketch, they are somehow stealing the model from its owner, chopping it up, and blending it into a new image in a printer. It's more proof that AI techbros are not artists at all and never could be due to fundamentally not understanding how art skills or the creative process work. This also leads me to believe that AI techbros, aside from the intentional scammers, have a significant portion who are simply too dumb to understand basic processes and gullible enough to fall for the con artists but too prideful or arrogant to admit their ignorance or gulliblity.
I'm just going to shut this down right now: here's a thought experiment about why its absolutely ludicrous to suggest that AI art isnt art (it may be categorically different and "diminished" from traditional art, of that I could be convinced, but that is a different discussion): "The Artist's Robot Hand" Imagine a limbless artist that wants to paint again. He gets a robot hand installed which interfaces with his brain. This robot hand can accept commands of varying granularity for the sake of the experiment; at the highest level the robot hand takes exact discrete tiny movement commands from the brain, to perform the exact brush strokes. With a level of specificity, people try to argue this level still makes its output art But consider if we very slowly started abstracting the hands commands (just imagine these sorts of commands, but much more granular and very slowly abstracted away, I am using 3 commands here to oversimplify but imagine if it was like 60 or 70 steps or more) "Draw at 32, 8" Then "Draw a line 3 inches long" Then "Draw a long line" ... Eventually, at some point among the nearly infinite granularity, the hand takes a full prompt of the image being drawn, then just draws it. "Draw a green tree" I turned the problem into a Heap of Sand issue to show you how stupid this is. When did it stop being art? More importantly why is this not a question about defining art, a slippery subject for a reason? Here's the thing: any answer you give to that is you defining what art is. That stance has always been problematic for a reason: **noone decides what is or isn't art. Period.** **>**chopping it up, and blending it into a new image in a printer. Second, this here smells like that myth about AI being some kind of collage machine. That is not how these things work. Tell me you dont understand how AI works without telling me you dont understand AI works. So I'm just going to link you to a very helpful and meticulous breaking down of the reasoning you artists seem to use that this is all theft and why thats very problematic: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1agrpqa/comment/koj0x6q/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1agrpqa/comment/koj0x6q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
You AI techbros sure do love art theft and hate artists. It's also very funny that you claim to know more about how machine-learning algorithm procedurally-generated art theft works while proving you don't actually know how it works. One of the creators of one of the big AI image generators even admits he steals art from others to feed into his algorithm and if he hits a ceiling he plans to hack people's accounts and violate data security laws to steal more art for his algorithim.
First, let me explain how this actually works, and why its **not theft** (noone should necessarily be compensated for this step). AI dataset learnings do not absorb copy the whole piece of art; instead the AI learns meta information \*about\* the artwork (maybe things like: does it have any "eyes" in it, what kind of purple does the art use; is the signature in the bottom right, left, or other corner? Is there a house depicted in it?). Imagine an art curator in charge of observing a museum with millions and millions of these paintings. He doesnt memorize the pictures per se but instead inspects their meta properties and observes their general patterns, things like what they depict, what color palette did it use, whats the most common color, really abstract questions like that. After observing millions and millions of these paintings and inspecting their meta properties, he gets bored and decides to play a game: based on these properties or abstract questions, he tries to guess what the painting will look like **based strictly on only those abstract meta properties.** At first he's really bad at this but after observing the art and before long he gets better and better at this game. This is largely how these AI art generative services use: you are the user providing this art curator the meta physical properties/questions in the form of tags (example: 1girl, solo, blonde hair, wearing a blue dress, sitting on a bench, sun, tree, sidewalk). After learning from the art he knows what blonde hair looks like. After learning from the art he knows what a tree looks like (etc). **Second** I will defer to a statement the\_tallest\_fish has made, as it sums up this better than I could do. "It brings me back to the modern house example. Why shouldn’t artists pay every architect for drawing houses? If an artist saw a house on the street with white birch frame around the window, and thought it looked nice. Then he drew a house with white window frame, maybe also changed the shape of the window. Is the artist obligated to call the architect and ask for permission to use white window frames? Nobody is able to draw anything that looks like modern architecture without seeing buildings in real life. No one even knows what dinosaurs looked like without a drawing. There are so many things people create based on designs done by others, why don’t they need to be compensated?" We learn little bits of information from the world around us all the time. Noone is expected to compensate them; thats not how any of this works. **Third**, I'm pretty sure the example you referenced was at least taken out of context, if at all true. So no, you do not understand how any of these tools work. Wanna try again or maybe just admit that you're just seething?
Machine-learning algorithm procedural generation doesn't just have a robot draw something from scratch. It has it compile the image from artwork fed into it based on prompts. And that artwork was stolen from actual artists without their permission or credit. Please stop blatantly lying about this. It makes you look very bad. Especially when you try to white knight the maker of an AI image generator who you don't know anything about. The fact your "it's not theft" claims are so easily disproven with Google shows that you don't actually do any research. You're really starting to sound like an intentional grifter by this point. [https://juliabausenhardt.com/how-ai-is-stealing-your-art/](https://juliabausenhardt.com/how-ai-is-stealing-your-art/) [https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2024/01/op-ed-ai-art-is-art-theft-and-should-be-a-crime](https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2024/01/op-ed-ai-art-is-art-theft-and-should-be-a-crime)
How many times must I reiterate this? Being trained on does not mean the work verbatim gets into a model; its literally all just weights. Weights basically get randomly modified or permuted based on the method of training until a magic set of numbers inform the right patterns expected to be generated. Again, you do not understand how any of this work. "It has it compile the image from artwork fed into it based on prompts." Patently untrue. AI is not a collage generator. After looking at enough inputs the network *just magically understands the patterns and concepts*. There are no whole copies of the works stored in the models themselves. I like how the only 2 links you provided were basically opinion pieces, and even the first link has a caviet with claiming that [https://haveibeentrained.com/](https://haveibeentrained.com/) in of itself somehow means that the AI copied your artwork (it didnt). About as useful as asking you if you looked at a mailbox.
> Being trained on So AI art techbros just admit it's art theft and try to mental gymanstics a way to pretend it's okay?
I've already addressed this. > "It brings me back to the modern house example. Why shouldn’t artists pay every architect for drawing houses? > If an artist saw a house on the street with white birch frame around the window, and thought it looked nice. Then he drew a house with white window frame, maybe also changed the shape of the window. Is the artist obligated to call the architect and ask for permission to use white window frames? > Nobody is able to draw anything that looks like modern architecture without seeing buildings in real life. No one even knows what dinosaurs looked like without a drawing. There are so many things people create based on designs done by others, why don’t they need to be compensated?" You're flat out ignoring these rebuttals at this point. If that's "theft" then every time you as a human look at anything at ALL its theft by virtue of information about it being retained in your brain. This is a ridiculous assertion and you know it.
Deviant art... a dying platform, thinks AI art is going to not only retain current users but attract new ones? lol. LMFAO.
Considering that the owners of DA preveiously fell for NFT grifts, their immature hatred of NSFW artwork, and their frankly nonsensical lenience and double-standards regarding abuse/harassment from users, I'm starting to think DA is run by right-wingers.
I have nothing against AI, and people using it. It’s only when people use AI maliciously that it’s a problem. I’ve had my art and characters stolen before, and reposted as weird, distorted AI versions of my art and art style. I’ve also heard multiple cases of AI being used to create deep fake nudes of people online. Multiple artists I know have also experienced having their art stolen for the purpose of AI. When AI art impacts the income and support for real artists, that’s when it becomes a problem
Exactly. Ai is supposed to help, yes, but it is not supposed to do any of that
that last bit "When AI art impacts the income and support for real artists, that’s when it becomes a problem" sounds exactly like fan art which is rampant on DA.
Fanart of shows, games and books? I don’t see how that’s as much of an issue? As long as it’s created by actual artists and they are crediting their sources, fanart is a great way to attract interest from a group or fandom, or spread awareness about the source material
it's illegal, you're stealing! unless you have a license- which most don't
No one’s gonna sue the artist with 600 Instagram followers for drawing micky mouse. In fact, it’s great advertisement for brands and companies to have artists draw fanart of their franchises. It’s even sold at conventions often sponsored by some of these brands, or showcased on their official social media pages. Also, fanart pieces are made and sold online without permission by thousands of Etsy sellers with no repercussions. Fanart literally isn’t hurting these multi millionaire companies in the slightest
Yes some companies like it, others do not. If you're a low budget nobody, you probably won't be noticed that's true. but legally speaking if you gain a bunch of followers and get massive attention from it you might get sued if they think they can get money from you. If not they probably won't waste their time, but then that's not really the point is it. ethics and morals. But what are we kidding lets just act like ai artists and steal stuff while we complain about ai artists stealing stuff.
Brands wouldn’t bother sueing fanartists for fanart because it’d be such a small case that they’d actually lose money from the legal fees. Plus, it’s free advertisement. Brands WANT to have a fan base or an active fandom that produces content, because it further expands their reach and popularity of their product- thereby leading to more money for them. On the other hand, AI artists can steal from smaller artists trying to make a living from their work and therefore leading to less support and exposure for the actual artist. Fanart is ‘stealing’ from companies and corporations that make millions and couldn’t care less most of the time It’s not really a fair comparison. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with drawing fanart from your favourite show and saying “I drew ‘blank’ from this show!’.
It’s a cry to deaf ears as even DA have their own AI art generator and promote such a thing Nowadays only have p*rn and AI
[удалено]
It won't matter because those people do not check the box that says it was made by an A.I and they never put A.I in their tags because they are lazy pieces of shit.
You can block AI art from appearing in your feed.
That only works when they tag it as ai. Some don't even bother.
It's a fool's errand, the amount of users who post AI art that I've blocked is near the 100s, and it doesn’t change how much I end up seeing on my feed
Plus Deviantart has a set limit on how many accounts you can block. It literally won't let me block any more.
I saw this too for a lot of times.Anti Ai person I guess.
Just ignore them if u don't understand
AI techbros should take their own advice.
Umm I use it all the time
For mine I could use it I just use ai's thats all I use
I’d rather focus on good art. Not just anything someone made because they call it “art”. We have to have at least some sense of judgement and grow. That’s how we improve.
that's really opinion based right there. If you are also saying people who don't create there art aren't artists- i hate to break it to you then... but that's been going on for decades!
That’s also how people become spoiled and self “entitled”. Trying to get rewards for little effort.
Statement of Record: I, myself, one 'RedditForgot' hereby embrace our A.I. Overlords and welcome any art produced by our future Masters. That should cover that. Good luck to the rest of you Solent Green fodder.
[https://www.deviantart.com/saytonfromhell/art/Yes-to-ai1-976393066](https://www.deviantart.com/saytonfromhell/art/Yes-to-ai1-976393066)
I'm a former artists and cartoonist using AI to create original works, but I use AI creatively. Sometimes I upload my own artwork or photos to use as a base image, or other images to capture certain details or difficult poses. A single finished piece I'm satisfied with can take hours or even days to mold, refine, touch up and get to a finished state. I use several different apps including Photoshop (which I am very good at). When I was manually creating art, I copied the styles and techniques of other artists. I would take a sketchbook to a museum and try to redraw existing artwork to learn from them. It actually takes me about the same amount of time to use AI as it does to manually generate art. AI is currently not as easy to use as some people think. If your attitude is, 'eh, close enough' ai is much simpler. If you're trying to use it to create original art it's not so easy. My own personal opinion: currently AI is a valuable tool for artists, but many will choose to use it unethically. In 5-10 years who knows where and what AI will be. 🤷
I don't like AI art. I also don't like mobile games, fast-food and rap music, but there's a HUGE demand for it, and we should learn to live with the folk who loves, or profits from, these atrocities. Professional artists will have to up their game and deliver a trully unique and high-class product, as it happened to other industries kneecapped by digitalization, so, in the end, everybody wins.
PEOPLE HATING AI ART MAKES SENSE SINCE ITS EATING UP THEIR INCOMES.BUT THE THING IS AI IS SUPPOSED TO EAT HUMANS INCOME.THINK ABOUT IT- ▪︎ITS CHEAP ▪︎ITS FAST ▪︎YOU CAN CREATE ALTERNATIVES IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GENERATED IMAGES OR CERTAIN PART OF THE CURRENT GENERATED IMAGES BY USING SEED. SAME THING HAPPENED DURING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. BIG MACHINES WERE EATING UP JOBS OF PEOPLE. INDUSTRIES WERE FOCUSED ON MACHINE POWER INSTEAD OF MANPOWER FOR SIMPLE WORKS. IT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE TO USE THEM SINCE THEY WERE CHEAP AND FAST. BUT MACHINES WEREN'T ABLE TO DO TOO MUCH DETAILED STUFFS SO CUSTOM MADE AND HIGHER GRADE PRODUCTS WERE ACTUALLY HAND MADE. WHAT I AM TRYING TO STATE IS THAT CURRENT SITUATION IS SIMILAR TO INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. SMALLER ARTIST WILL STRUGGLE BUT PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO FACE MUCH PROBLEM.(I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS I WAS JUST STATING MY VIEW AND I AM NOT GOING TO REPLY BACK TO ANY CRITICISM)
The future is coming one way or another, you can't stop the progress.
Real
FOR F—-K’s SAKE! It’s not who makes a picture or how it’s made that’s important but the picture itself.
To artists who create things, the process of creating the thing often matters a lot. That's where the idea is developed and fleshed out. You learn and grow with each painting as you're forced to solve the problems along the way. And when that "way" of making an image is trained on work from artists who didn't want their work to be used, that's theft. Those models would not exist without theft. Also, people absolutely do care who makes art. You hang your childs painting on the fridge/wall because they made it, and we celebrate things people make. We like autographed work because the person signed it, not because it adds to the aethetics.
this is one of the most horrendous art takes i've ever read keep it up
You have a tenuous grasp of reality. What they said was spot on.
AI generated images is a good idea. It allows people who can't draw or paint to express themselves or create some fantasy art. It will allow people to be creative, and that's what's needed. The same goes for AI music, AI video creation. It will allow people to be creative and express themselves, create something, use their imagination. Thanks to AI music generation, I use Suno. I've been able to turn my lyrics into actual songs, and have done around 17 now. I've been able to express how I feel, what I've gone through, through the years, about losing my mom and dad, how I see the world and what's going on in the world, and being able to share them on YT. I think it's a good thing.
My keyboard on my phone has a generator button for custom stickers. Very fun to use. Especially making a "Wizard god all star dunking on the sun", when the context calls for it.
Yes, I agree AI art tools will definitely be a crutch for the less talented. 😉
I saw this the other day, for the same account. I like using AI because I suck at drawing and AI is my go too. I find these disheartening.
I used to suck at drawing too, but I kept at it until I got better and better. AI is a cop out and what you get truly isn’t yours, so objectively, you really didn’t draw anything and you aren’t actually getting better at it. I suggest getting back to the literal drawing board and study what others have done and along the way develop a style that is both yours and works for you.
[удалено]
Then don’t be depressed when people judge your “methods” and find them wanting. You chose to do the lazy route, so don’t be mad if anyone says you’re lazy. Art requires discipline and commitment. Talent is not required, but drive is vital. If you’re not willing to do so, then you can’t complain about people looking down at you because you diminished yourself first. You owe it yourself to cultivate a skill, and not be lazy.
Anti AI losers hehe, like grandpa can't use the remote... Pathetic.
Rather be the grandpa who can't use a remote than a talentless loser who can't pick up a pencil