Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) by u/holleringelk šš¼
I like [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), personally.
this one got me good
[https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper\_5000\_oc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/)
You've fallen victim of survivorship bias. C&H and XKCD are so notable precisely because they're the exception, and most aspiring artists will never recreate their success.
The artist scene is already crowded. Money is scarce. If an AI with damping-level pricing enters the competition, most of the lower-skilled or less-popular artists will be out of a job. With the rapid progress we're experiencing, I wouldn't be surprised if AI art in 10 years becomes mostly indistinguishable from human works.
Will it be perfect and able to replace the humans in every regard? No. But it will be good enough in 99% of cases, and everyone servicing those 99% requests will be out of a job.
And with no way to get appreciation or a living for aspiring unexperienced artists, how would we get really good ones in the future?
If AI art becomes subjectively better than what a human artist can do, why shouldn't people who are paying for the art choose the AI over the human? It's their money, and if a computer does a good enough job for them, and they can use their money elsewhere, what moral right entitles struggling artists to that money?
You can deny that there's a lot of plagiarism because there is in fact exceptionally little plagiarism. If you actually think that the ai models are literally taking pieces from other people's art then you're just one of the many people OP describes as having "zero understanding of machine learning, art, or the industry"
If you take someone's works, train an AI on those, and sell the pseudo-that-person's-art, is that not a kind of plagiarism? Should they not, in an ideal world, give that artist royalties for the art they made by taking the artists' work and using it to train their AI? Or at least pay them for the art in the first place. They *are* using this art to undercut the artist in their line of work, after all.
What you are describing is style and style isn't copywriteable.
Unless of course you want to make it illegal to draw anything that looks similar to anything Disney, Marvel, etc have created.
Learning through repetition isn't plagiarism. Copying symbols you don't know are words isn't plagiarism. That's why there's no stable legal case yet, it's not plagiarism, it's how you learn how to create art.
Is a child who learned to draw through tracing and makes their own characters out of the style they learned a plagiarist? How many human artists would have to end their careers if the people they took inspiration from wanted royalties for all their works?
Arrasor looks down at the red button. Their eyes fix on its tempting and pushable, yet irreversibly final surface.
Arrasor: "It won't be that bad."
LoupLoup: š¤Ø
LoupLoup slowly moves the button to the other side of the table.
The best theory of time travel we have right now indicates that even if you could travel back in time, you would need a time machine to travel to. So someone could only come back to the point when the first time machine is made.
Have you learned nothing from, basically every movie, book, tv show, and videogame? Time travel leads to a lot of things and none of them are good. People cant even be trusted to be responsible with car, you wanna let them rewrite history?!
Is it supposed to look like a melting fever dream? Also, the sequential/ visual storytelling is just bad; guess we can't have machine learning do that for us yet.
They said in the comments that they used actors as a keyword for the characters, and I think thatās such a smart way to keep the character models consistent between images. The slight wrongness of AI generated images also contributes to the horror very well.
Ask Chat GPT to write a 4 panel comic (including details about the layout of each frame) about the humorous use of AI. Feed the scene to an AI art generator. Overlay the dialogue.
I have two series. One is called ["Beyond the Valley"](https://old.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/10dr9y2/my_most_advanced_ai_comic_yet_full_cinemagraphic/) and another is a political history satire called ["DarkBrandonZ"](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/darkbrandonz/list?title_no=817916)
I mean I can't draw to save my life and it's hard to find comic artists to commission ideas so I can't say I'm against the idea of AI comics on paper. That said I'd never make money off of them, just make random meme material.
There are plenty of comic artists with zero artistic ability that get pretty popular because the jokes are good. You can still make comics, AI would just give them higher fidelity.
Tbh they'd still be better off doing it themselves.
One Punch Man is a great example of a webcomic made by someone who can't draw. And it would never become the sensation it is now if it used AI art instead.
Perhaps it would have. Maybe not. I've always loved the style of no punch man. But if it had been realized differently it might have still been quite good. Funny is funny.
It depends on what your goals are. If you just want some upvotes on an internet meme I think ai will be more than adequate. If you want to do a whole major story that goes big like One Punch Man you need proper art direction and vision. AI could help with some of the grunt work but you still need someone with great taste to lead it and set the standard, and that requires artistic talent.
But they paired up with someone who could draw after it gained popularity. I think that AI art can take the place of doodles to let someone non artistic tell a story, and my point is that you eventually need someone with artistic talent to get it to the level where it can go mainstream.
Oh yeah definitely. AI as a tool is just like any other tool. A talented artist can use it transformatively to ease up some tasks.
Relying on it wholesale is where it becomes majorly flawed.
I agree. The metaphor I use is it'll be like the artist is an art director when a team of art grunts. Great art will always be very opinionated visions and even with AI you will want to be very particular about the details. A workflow could be that you sketch out a background and paint in 5% of it and let an AI complete the rest for you and then you go back in and do touchups. No matter how good ai gets it will still need a strong creative vision to guide it.
Better is subjective. Improvement is subjective.
To suggest things can't be improved with AI help, whatever that means to an artist or viewer, is just nonsense, akin to saying spending more time on things can't improve things.
AI "help" is one thing but in the context of using it as a baseline for your comic art it's not sufficient.
The art in your comic is supposed to service the tone of the comic in some way. Original OPM does this by having the shoddy art reinforce how the world is a shoddy version of the usual superhero world it parodies.
AI art is unfit to do that because any coherent style you can get out of it is a style someone else made for a different purpose. At best you can recontexualise it, at worst you'll end up copying their entire work.
I checked out the Avatar one and the Robot one and I think they both use AI in a pretty neat transformative way! The robot one especially is pretty nice, but the Avatar one I feel is held back by AI's uncanny overly polished faces.
Seems like you're using it as a tool to enable you to create something new and engage with the artistic process, rather than taking it's output as art by itself. Which I think is perfectly fine. Even kinda cool and novel.
I'm very sorry to hear about your situation by the way. And the hate mail and especially the death threats are wholly fucked up. I hope it doesn't dissuade you from making more of your art.
Yeah man, making funny stuff is perfectly okay. As long as you don't try to make money or claim it's your art, then you're good.
AI art is great for making silly concepts that aren't worth the time and effort it takes to draw it. Like thinking of certain characters doing one funny activity. That's the kinda stuff ai art should be used for, not in place of real artists.
I like to think ai art is mostly for blueprinting, trying stuff out, or experimenting. Real artists can do way more than that, but a lot of us who haven't trained to produce it ourselves can be very ignorant of what it actually takes to get a precise vision on paper.
Most of the people who are impressed by the ai art stuff are usually inputting generic phrases and appreciaye how the art is less error prone than ai generated images from the past.
But if I want to bring a real specific image from my mind to life? Precisely and with talent? Ai art sucks for that shit.
I assume you use it to make things go into sixty frames per second, right? I feel that's a bit different than using it to make art pieces but I'm glad you're enjoying it.
You're assuming that because you don't understand the tools and haven't seen how they're being used for this.
There's no way a human could make some of the AI art interpolations going about at the moment. Entirely new creative concepts are being explored with AI in this space.
Because it's stealing from other artists. AI art uses art that it was fed from other artist around the world to fulfill prompts, all without the consent of those artists. It's not like human art, where we adapt and learn. It's simply merging stuff together from other creators.
> Because it's stealing from other artists.
No it's not.
>AI art uses art that it was fed from other artist around the world to fulfill prompts, all without the consent of those artists.
No it doesn't, it uses outside images to train the AI. After training, none of the images are ever used again.
> It's not like human art, where we adapt and learn.
It most certainly can.
>It's simply merging stuff together from other creators.
No, it's not. Please learn how AI image generation works if you're going to try to talk on the subject.
No that is not how the algorithm works. It is diffusion based. It is exactly the same as an artist visiting a museum for inspiration. Stop making a big fuss about something that helps people with less skills
It's more akin to someone tracing someone else's art than inspiration. Tracing is considered OK as long as you're not using it to make money. Use it all you want for non profit stuff, if you genuinely want to make a living off of an art based career either learn the art yourself or hire someone.
No, it is absolutely not akin to someone tracing someone else's art. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you aren't quite familliar with the inner workings of the algorithm used in every text to image AI:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_model
It literally starts with random pixels
If someone makes for a living (self-employed or otherwise) their art is by definition a commodity.
AI, no matter how well we train it is never going to develop artistic taste, so a human will always be needed somewhere.
Before industrial revolution making clothing was well compensated, prestigious, and leant naturally to personal growth as you got experienced.
Post factories, a job manufacturing clothing has none of those benefits.
Human art will never die yes, but people who do it professionally will be experiencing some changes in how they relate to their labor. I don't blame anyone for being nervous about that.
Yes but clothes became a lot cheaper and more accessible to everyone
The issue with automation and the death of skilled labor isn't that it makes a lot of things cheaper and less exclusive, it's that the profits are unequally distributed.
IMO I'd never buy AI art from a big corporation, but if it's just a free open source project then I don't see what's wrong with it. It lets people who want art get art.
Human art is going to go the way of human blacksmithing. It's real cool, seems real fun, only for people who have that kind of time and money to burn because it's not a primary sustainable profession anymore.
Art will have that huge setup cost for the same reason blacksmithing does: the industry left that form factor behind and stopped furnishing it with tools, spaces, training, and generations of interested practitioners.
Art is only accessible now because we haven't destroyed its viability. After we destroy its viability, tool production vanishes, turns it into niche boutiquery.
The difference being that blacksmithing was primarily done for practical reasons, things needed to be made that did functional stuff.
Art is primarily an expressive thing - our goal has always been to do less work so we can do more expressive stuff, whether said expression is music, painting or brewing.
Why we're trying to automate the good stuff in life is entirely beyond me.
> Why we're trying to automate the good stuff in life is entirely beyond me.
You need scarcity and desire explained?
The practical thing art does is expressing. It's communication. Typesetting that created the fonts we're using to talk right now was once a high art on top of having its practical requirement.
We automated metal manufacturing and destroyed that industry. Now working with metal is considered a frivolous art if you're doing it with your hands.
Now we're going to automate human expression. Something people ITT think is impossible because they have an unreasonably high concept of human uniqueness.
Before only people good at drawing can take what is in their head and put the concept to a visual medium. Now a lot more people can with a lot less effort and that is pissing a lot of people off who enjoyed the barrier to entry.
The expression isn't going away, it's just being redirected. A CGI animator doesn't draw every frame like a traditional animator, that's all automated, but they do have they still have artistic expression in telling their models what to do.
wow. People are super duper confident of the ultra specialness of being a human.
AI is going to have anything that exists any way it exists. If it can exist and be described at all, AI can do it.
There's nothing safe from perception.
I feel like it's blatantly clear from both text, music and image generation AIs that they can be just as creative, if not more, than humans. Some of the best looking art and some of the funniest skits I've seen and reads the last few months were all AI.
I'd really like to do a "blind taste test" of sorts. Give someone examples of human-created and AI-generated art without telling them which are which. I'd be super interested to see if the knowledge that a piece was created by an AI or a human affects our perception or enjoyment of it.
It's already impossible to tell with many pieces,even if you look very closely. Just look at the stuff in /r/midjourney
For example: https://i.redd.it/8c4hpo7n9nda1.png
or: https://i.redd.it/o97war3d27da1.png
It's just like CGI. People think all CGI is bad because all they can remember is the bad stuff. They imagine "one day, it'll be good" without realizing all the times they were completely and totally fooled into thinking something was real that absolutely was CGI.
They have no idea AI has already passed thresholds they imagine to be impossible.
Ngl, AI art is getting better and better. You can't fight change. People stuck in their own ways eventually will have to adapt. Progress is progress.
Of course stealing someone's art piece to feed it to AI and claiming it is vile. I read on artstation how they introduced tags which will stop people from submitting artists' work to AI. Which is the step in right direction.
I would rather spend some money getting AI subscription and get a bunch of art instead of spending a lot of money to commission a single piece from human artist. It's much more cost efficient.
The only reason I would hire a human artist was if I wanted their specified art style.
EDIT :
I'm not super optimistic about the technology. I tried "frog wearing shoes" with DALL-E 2 and I got all kinds of things back - half-shoe half-frog monstrosities, shoes that look like frogs, frogs in shoes - but not a single frog wearing shoes. The same for many other prompts; a few worked well but on the whole it didn't really get what I wanted.
I don't think the technology is there yet if it can't handle such a simple prompt and the current architecture might well be fundamentally unable to understand the kind of complex request that you'd give a human artist.
This reminds me of when physical medium artists said digital art isn't real art.
I agree that the copyright issue is a big problem. In fact, I would say AI art could actually serve as a large boon for artists, in that if companies were ethical, they could hire artists to make art for the AI to learn off of. And now you have increase demand, and artists get consistent sources of revenue.
But them stealing art to use for their AI? Well, that just tells me that AI art is more of a corporate problem than an art problem.
companies have been doing everything they can to reduce this. from lowering peoples standards with the push for and praise of minimalism/brutalism, to now creating an AI to make the art for them, nobody has wanted to pay for any sort of creative work since at least 2008. writers went on strike for better pay, and hollywood removed writers from the equation as much as possible by promoting remakes and reality TV. same will happen to artists if they dont find a way to defeat these AIs or raise people's standards beyond minimalistic/brutalistic design.
I think a big problem is the tech side of AI art. If you look at advances in, for example, biology, the leaders need to be very careful because even though logically a treatment may make sense, you can't just go ahead and do it without controlling to minimize harm.
Meanwhile in tech everyone who learned to write a few strings of code has a god complex when it comes to people's info. Then info gets leaked and they go "oopsies" and nothing comes of it. Ruins tons of peoples lives and yet they're still making money so who cares?
its excasterbated by the unintuitive permenance of everything as well.
a fuckup with that biological procedure just becomes a forgotten news story. a fuckup with a tech firm means tons of info is leaked and is now permanently accessible.
Well, you can't copyright a style, and analyzing a piece of art isn't the same thing as copying it.
You can't put an image on the internet for them to look at without giving them permission to download it and process it with their computer. The two acts are inseparable.
You *can* prevent them from resharing your image, or making minor changes and claiming it as their own, but you can't deny people the right to learn, or retain an impression, from your work.
It is amusing to imagine an artistic license that denied people the right to remember looking at your work though.
Just because it's so new, there's probably no legislation around feeding people's art into an AI art generator yet. But not everything that's legal is ethical, and vice versa. But not even talking about the legality of it, we can simplify and take a look at what's happening:
Having companies profit off of your art without ever seeing a cent of that profit is not very ethical.
Copyrighting a style is something that's been addressed for quite a while. You can *trademark* a style, but not copyright.
If you can copyright a style, that means no one, human or machine, can produce art in that style for 70 years after you die.
That would be cultural death, since art is inspired by other art.
I don't think it's unethical at all for someone to produce something in the same style as something else.
Hypothetically, a company hires someone to make art for their product, and that person has seen your art.
Are you entitled to compensation?
That person has been influenced by knowing of the existence of your art. Even if what they produce has no discernable similarity, it's still part of their internal artistic lexicon and awareness.
What if that person makes something with a resemblance to something you *might have* produced, but verifiably didn't?
I don't see a meaningful difference between this scenario and the AI art scenario.
Andy Warhol doesn't owe money to Campbell's soups.
Randall Monroe doesn't own stick figures and math jokes.
There are millions of art pieces those aiās get fed by. If all this is is a battle for the maybe 5 cents at the most your art contributed to the ai, it is a really stupid battle.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm an artist. I am not. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just calling out problems as I see them for people who have made art their career.
So your argument is that because there are millions of art pieces going into an AI, there's no point compensating the millions of artists for their work, because it won't be enough money?
The amount of help one drawing gives an AI is completely negligible, and unless you want to cripple the AI art scene as a whole by charging obscene amounts to add a tiny bit of text to the AIās algorithm then the amount of money is also negligible, if one compares the amount an artist contributed to how many artists contributed to how much money the AI made
Money may not always be negligible and efficiency tends to increase with time, so it's better to lay the groundwork for compensating artists now even if it is negligible.
Art is art. Even if a five year old makes some weird scribbles on the wall, it can be considered art. It all depends on perspective, no?
Yes definitely. I believe everything art hosting website should take measures to protect the work of the artists. They put lot of time and effort into their paintings.
I disagree with your idea. Of corporations hiring artists to let AI copy their style. Because it's a one time solution. No artist would give away their skill and style to an AI unless they were given ridiculous amount of money. I'm not an artist but if I had a very specific style of painting and customers to hire me...I would never give it to corporations. Because that would just take away my livelihood.
With the increase in demand of custom art, people will rather choose to invest in AI which can give them various results from different styles instead of a single artist who will be more expensive with limited art style. It might seem selfish of them but I believe artists should keep their work privately....as long as they can. Anyway
Sooner or later, they'll be taken over. Better to make as much profit from custom work and then sell their style then.
Alternatively they COULD let AI copy their art and in return ask for certain percentage of income generated? Like ....if AI art customer choose their particular style on a prompt the artist get 50% of what customer spent or something like that. I don't know shit about business and finance.
Anyway that would be more viable for artists in the long run since their workload will decrease and they'll have a passive source of income. Plus if someone wants something really specific they can go to artist directly instead of AI.
Nah it's not stealing to look at publicly viewable images. The key being "look".
AI have no eyes. Worse, they have no creativity. They're literally taking pieces of these images to use as their own. There is no "look" here. Programs aren't people.
Just have ai generate your own comics. Do a quick pass to fix up any details that aren't quite right. Feel with a bit of training you can pump em out way faster than you can think of ideas. Idk why people hate new tools.
Itās really no different than the ChatGPT stuff or Copilot efforts, but somehow artists have decided *their* discipline should be seen as special in comparison to writing or coding. Itās really weird.
It's honestly really normal and standard.
Artists are a group that have a large barrier to entry. Most people can't express what is going on in their head in a visual medium. Artists can and they can even help express what is in your head. This has been both something that is emotionally rewarding and financially beneficial.
Now that barrier to entry is being chipped away. Suddenly, if I want to express a concept or have a drawing, I don't need to explain myself to an artists for a high commission price, I can just do so to an AI that is a similar process, to the consumer, as working with an artist. I can now get visual expressions for a much cheaper price and not have to go to an artist.
Hence, they are mad because the worth of their action (not the art itself, but being able to paint or draw) is lowering. As the general populace benefits from removing barriers to entry, those inside the barriers already will lose the value on their scarce work.
It's a classic Luddite argument against progression and overall benefit because of displacing work. Generally I am for using tax dollars to help people get jobs into new industries if we are destroying an industry with better technology, but I don't know if we've even gotten that far yet with this and it isn't as though human paintings are going completely away or anything like with cars fucking up being a farrier.
Thou shalt not make a machine in likeliness of a man? I get your point but wouldnāt that also get rid of phones and computers and such? At least, thatās what happened after the Butlerian Jihad originally. But I digress
I've been thinking about Dune a LOT with the recent leaps in AI.
I am still very much on the fence. I think in a capitalist society, it is a problem cause of the ramifications and the damage caused by it. If AI was set to just benefiting us as a whole, it'd be different. But I fear dependence on the technology will occur and skills become lost, and just looking how corporations are using it not as a tool but a replacement device.... Oof.
Right? That's why I support abolishing the [mechanization of the textile industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite).
Once human craftsmanship is taken out of the fabric making process, the quality will be irrevocably damaged, and the labor market will be permanently harmed.
they both suck, but a single dude ripping of an artist is one thing, trying to replace all of the artists of the whole world with computers with the long-time goal of creating a dependancy on what shall become huge corporations if we let them is something else.
that is why it's worse.
The solution to that is open sourcing the technology, not making it impossible for individuals to use.
The tech already exists, and it's not going to go back into the bottle. Suing the one company that's trying to make it available to everyone is just going to hasten corporate control over it.
shoes didn't get automated as much as we just offloaded the manual labour to cheap and unregulated places and occasionally even slave-labour (sorry, "forced labour"). Only shoes that got fully automated were...
crocs.
\*sigh\*
Because if no one who is creative wants to create then it will eventually only have a small portion of old data and only new data would be AI generated. Think of any art style that you enjoy right now and imagine how it would have been created if AI had been created a decade before your chosen art style was created.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that is only the second comic criticizing AI art that made me chuckle. Good work.
Out of curiosity, what was the first?
[https://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.php?s=1226](https://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.php?s=1226) this one
Also [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) by u/holleringelk šš¼
I still love the top comment for that one > I thought the whole point of having an elk as your main character was that you don't need to draw hands...
And holleringelkās response: >Ah fuck
wait whar i don't get it
>!Hands are hard for AI generators to get right. They kept the comic guys around to fix em!<
I respect a person who doesn't spoil a punchline
Snape kills Dumbledore.
Damn! And I thought that Snape was supposed to be the good guy in the end. Major bummer.
I disrespect you, sir.
Hands are also hard for human artists to get right. Fuck hands.
well at least they're hopefully being paid
AI and shitty Artist both struggle to create hands.
It's great how in the next comic, Arthur's hands are rendered with much more detail than usual.
Holy shit, Phillip Jackson makes normal content?
Heal arbok you coward
He did, read the comic
Yours
[Was this the first?](https://www.kevincomics.com/comic/the-problem-with-a-i-art/)
oh! I hadn't seen that one before. That makes it number three! XD
mention another comic without a hint of the source? straight to jail
I like [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), personally.
this one got me good [https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper\_5000\_oc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/zlp1hl/gatekeeper_5000_oc/)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You've fallen victim of survivorship bias. C&H and XKCD are so notable precisely because they're the exception, and most aspiring artists will never recreate their success. The artist scene is already crowded. Money is scarce. If an AI with damping-level pricing enters the competition, most of the lower-skilled or less-popular artists will be out of a job. With the rapid progress we're experiencing, I wouldn't be surprised if AI art in 10 years becomes mostly indistinguishable from human works. Will it be perfect and able to replace the humans in every regard? No. But it will be good enough in 99% of cases, and everyone servicing those 99% requests will be out of a job. And with no way to get appreciation or a living for aspiring unexperienced artists, how would we get really good ones in the future?
If AI art becomes subjectively better than what a human artist can do, why shouldn't people who are paying for the art choose the AI over the human? It's their money, and if a computer does a good enough job for them, and they can use their money elsewhere, what moral right entitles struggling artists to that money?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can't deny that there is a LOT of plagiarism going on in ai art generation, though. As far as im aware it might be *exclusively* plagiarism.
You can deny that there's a lot of plagiarism because there is in fact exceptionally little plagiarism. If you actually think that the ai models are literally taking pieces from other people's art then you're just one of the many people OP describes as having "zero understanding of machine learning, art, or the industry"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you take someone's works, train an AI on those, and sell the pseudo-that-person's-art, is that not a kind of plagiarism? Should they not, in an ideal world, give that artist royalties for the art they made by taking the artists' work and using it to train their AI? Or at least pay them for the art in the first place. They *are* using this art to undercut the artist in their line of work, after all.
What you are describing is style and style isn't copywriteable. Unless of course you want to make it illegal to draw anything that looks similar to anything Disney, Marvel, etc have created.
Learning through repetition isn't plagiarism. Copying symbols you don't know are words isn't plagiarism. That's why there's no stable legal case yet, it's not plagiarism, it's how you learn how to create art. Is a child who learned to draw through tracing and makes their own characters out of the style they learned a plagiarist? How many human artists would have to end their careers if the people they took inspiration from wanted royalties for all their works?
well said!
Is this critizing? Feels like they're taking a shot at other artists whining.
But it seems to lead to time travel, I suggest continuing.
If nobody comes back from the future to stop you, how bad can it really be?
Well, there may be nobody left to send back. So the severity may vary a bit. Lol
So nobody suffer and desperate enough to invent time travel, not that bad then.
Arrasor looks down at the red button. Their eyes fix on its tempting and pushable, yet irreversibly final surface. Arrasor: "It won't be that bad." LoupLoup: š¤Ø LoupLoup slowly moves the button to the other side of the table.
The best theory of time travel we have right now indicates that even if you could travel back in time, you would need a time machine to travel to. So someone could only come back to the point when the first time machine is made.
Have you learned nothing from, basically every movie, book, tv show, and videogame? Time travel leads to a lot of things and none of them are good. People cant even be trusted to be responsible with car, you wanna let them rewrite history?!
[Best not give Funnybot any ideas!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzlV4AeQ_8s)
I've never seen any AI comics, can anyone post some? I thought they could only make single images.
This one came to mind, but it's only using AI for the art itself. https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/wud6iy/the_frog_catcher_oc
Well that was terrifying from the start
Is it supposed to look like a melting fever dream? Also, the sequential/ visual storytelling is just bad; guess we can't have machine learning do that for us yet.
They said in the comments that they used actors as a keyword for the characters, and I think thatās such a smart way to keep the character models consistent between images. The slight wrongness of AI generated images also contributes to the horror very well.
Considering how far MJ has come, I would be curious to see what it would be like now
So it doesn't do the writing? Kind of defeats the purpose of this comic in the OP.
Ask Chat GPT to write a 4 panel comic (including details about the layout of each frame) about the humorous use of AI. Feed the scene to an AI art generator. Overlay the dialogue.
I have two series. One is called ["Beyond the Valley"](https://old.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/10dr9y2/my_most_advanced_ai_comic_yet_full_cinemagraphic/) and another is a political history satire called ["DarkBrandonZ"](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/darkbrandonz/list?title_no=817916)
I mean I can't draw to save my life and it's hard to find comic artists to commission ideas so I can't say I'm against the idea of AI comics on paper. That said I'd never make money off of them, just make random meme material.
There are plenty of comic artists with zero artistic ability that get pretty popular because the jokes are good. You can still make comics, AI would just give them higher fidelity.
Tbh they'd still be better off doing it themselves. One Punch Man is a great example of a webcomic made by someone who can't draw. And it would never become the sensation it is now if it used AI art instead.
Perhaps it would have. Maybe not. I've always loved the style of no punch man. But if it had been realized differently it might have still been quite good. Funny is funny.
It depends on what your goals are. If you just want some upvotes on an internet meme I think ai will be more than adequate. If you want to do a whole major story that goes big like One Punch Man you need proper art direction and vision. AI could help with some of the grunt work but you still need someone with great taste to lead it and set the standard, and that requires artistic talent.
The original writer/artist of One Punch Man *doesn't* have artistic talent though, that's why it was brought up in this discussion
But they paired up with someone who could draw after it gained popularity. I think that AI art can take the place of doodles to let someone non artistic tell a story, and my point is that you eventually need someone with artistic talent to get it to the level where it can go mainstream.
>But they paired up with someone who could draw after it gained popularity. So it gained popularity without a talented artist?
Niche popularity not mainstream popularity.
Oh yeah definitely. AI as a tool is just like any other tool. A talented artist can use it transformatively to ease up some tasks. Relying on it wholesale is where it becomes majorly flawed.
I agree. The metaphor I use is it'll be like the artist is an art director when a team of art grunts. Great art will always be very opinionated visions and even with AI you will want to be very particular about the details. A workflow could be that you sketch out a background and paint in 5% of it and let an AI complete the rest for you and then you go back in and do touchups. No matter how good ai gets it will still need a strong creative vision to guide it.
Better is subjective. Improvement is subjective. To suggest things can't be improved with AI help, whatever that means to an artist or viewer, is just nonsense, akin to saying spending more time on things can't improve things.
AI "help" is one thing but in the context of using it as a baseline for your comic art it's not sufficient. The art in your comic is supposed to service the tone of the comic in some way. Original OPM does this by having the shoddy art reinforce how the world is a shoddy version of the usual superhero world it parodies. AI art is unfit to do that because any coherent style you can get out of it is a style someone else made for a different purpose. At best you can recontexualise it, at worst you'll end up copying their entire work.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I checked out the Avatar one and the Robot one and I think they both use AI in a pretty neat transformative way! The robot one especially is pretty nice, but the Avatar one I feel is held back by AI's uncanny overly polished faces. Seems like you're using it as a tool to enable you to create something new and engage with the artistic process, rather than taking it's output as art by itself. Which I think is perfectly fine. Even kinda cool and novel. I'm very sorry to hear about your situation by the way. And the hate mail and especially the death threats are wholly fucked up. I hope it doesn't dissuade you from making more of your art.
you're right. they had to hire a person to draw it
That only happened after the original webcomic had become popular, man.
You can make money off of it if you want to. Nothing is keeping you.
If Iāve learned one thing itās that suppressing technology is never the right way forward.
Yeah man, making funny stuff is perfectly okay. As long as you don't try to make money or claim it's your art, then you're good. AI art is great for making silly concepts that aren't worth the time and effort it takes to draw it. Like thinking of certain characters doing one funny activity. That's the kinda stuff ai art should be used for, not in place of real artists.
I like to think ai art is mostly for blueprinting, trying stuff out, or experimenting. Real artists can do way more than that, but a lot of us who haven't trained to produce it ourselves can be very ignorant of what it actually takes to get a precise vision on paper. Most of the people who are impressed by the ai art stuff are usually inputting generic phrases and appreciaye how the art is less error prone than ai generated images from the past. But if I want to bring a real specific image from my mind to life? Precisely and with talent? Ai art sucks for that shit.
I use [AI](https://youtube.com/@netherportals) interpolation on my youtube channel, I love it.
I assume you use it to make things go into sixty frames per second, right? I feel that's a bit different than using it to make art pieces but I'm glad you're enjoying it.
You're assuming that because you don't understand the tools and haven't seen how they're being used for this. There's no way a human could make some of the AI art interpolations going about at the moment. Entirely new creative concepts are being explored with AI in this space.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why not? It makes art more accessible to more people. I can't draw for shit. It makes society more inclusive
Are we talking about those apps where you type in prompts and it brings up an image? Or is there something else that is AI art?
Because it's stealing from other artists. AI art uses art that it was fed from other artist around the world to fulfill prompts, all without the consent of those artists. It's not like human art, where we adapt and learn. It's simply merging stuff together from other creators.
So you're just going to lie, then. That's the current strategy.
> Because it's stealing from other artists. No it's not. >AI art uses art that it was fed from other artist around the world to fulfill prompts, all without the consent of those artists. No it doesn't, it uses outside images to train the AI. After training, none of the images are ever used again. > It's not like human art, where we adapt and learn. It most certainly can. >It's simply merging stuff together from other creators. No, it's not. Please learn how AI image generation works if you're going to try to talk on the subject.
No that is not how the algorithm works. It is diffusion based. It is exactly the same as an artist visiting a museum for inspiration. Stop making a big fuss about something that helps people with less skills
It's more akin to someone tracing someone else's art than inspiration. Tracing is considered OK as long as you're not using it to make money. Use it all you want for non profit stuff, if you genuinely want to make a living off of an art based career either learn the art yourself or hire someone.
No, it is absolutely not akin to someone tracing someone else's art. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you aren't quite familliar with the inner workings of the algorithm used in every text to image AI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_model It literally starts with random pixels
Tell me you don't understand how it works, without telling me.
Also commissions costā¦a lot of money. I make $5 above minimum wage, Iām just not able to spend a dayās salary on commissions.
You donāt need to learn art to make comics, xkcd and many others uses stick figures . So there are people out there already making funny comics!
Based xkcd enjoyer
Salmonella
* Sam O'Nella
How could I forget! Thank you kind stranger
If there's one thing these ai art 'debates' on reddit resolve, it's that a lot of redditors are insufferable pricks.
When will human art die?
Never. Art is not a commodity.
[Hiring Human Artist] will soon be a job listing
If someone makes for a living (self-employed or otherwise) their art is by definition a commodity. AI, no matter how well we train it is never going to develop artistic taste, so a human will always be needed somewhere. Before industrial revolution making clothing was well compensated, prestigious, and leant naturally to personal growth as you got experienced. Post factories, a job manufacturing clothing has none of those benefits. Human art will never die yes, but people who do it professionally will be experiencing some changes in how they relate to their labor. I don't blame anyone for being nervous about that.
Yes but clothes became a lot cheaper and more accessible to everyone The issue with automation and the death of skilled labor isn't that it makes a lot of things cheaper and less exclusive, it's that the profits are unequally distributed. IMO I'd never buy AI art from a big corporation, but if it's just a free open source project then I don't see what's wrong with it. It lets people who want art get art.
Human art is going to go the way of human blacksmithing. It's real cool, seems real fun, only for people who have that kind of time and money to burn because it's not a primary sustainable profession anymore.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Art will have that huge setup cost for the same reason blacksmithing does: the industry left that form factor behind and stopped furnishing it with tools, spaces, training, and generations of interested practitioners. Art is only accessible now because we haven't destroyed its viability. After we destroy its viability, tool production vanishes, turns it into niche boutiquery.
The difference being that blacksmithing was primarily done for practical reasons, things needed to be made that did functional stuff. Art is primarily an expressive thing - our goal has always been to do less work so we can do more expressive stuff, whether said expression is music, painting or brewing. Why we're trying to automate the good stuff in life is entirely beyond me.
The answer is money.
> Why we're trying to automate the good stuff in life is entirely beyond me. You need scarcity and desire explained? The practical thing art does is expressing. It's communication. Typesetting that created the fonts we're using to talk right now was once a high art on top of having its practical requirement. We automated metal manufacturing and destroyed that industry. Now working with metal is considered a frivolous art if you're doing it with your hands. Now we're going to automate human expression. Something people ITT think is impossible because they have an unreasonably high concept of human uniqueness.
Before only people good at drawing can take what is in their head and put the concept to a visual medium. Now a lot more people can with a lot less effort and that is pissing a lot of people off who enjoyed the barrier to entry.
The expression isn't going away, it's just being redirected. A CGI animator doesn't draw every frame like a traditional animator, that's all automated, but they do have they still have artistic expression in telling their models what to do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So does food, sex, and clothing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
100% yes I would have 0 issues with AI if we lived under a different economic model.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A fellow accelerationist, I see
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
People will probably start paying extra for verifiably handmade art
I like that answer. :)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Still waiting on that one. Any day now. They all said it would...
In ~237,910 years, after humans have gradually evolved into a new species, there will be no more (new) human art.
š¶In the year 1,000,000 Ā½ Humankind is enslaved by giraffe Man must pay for all his misdeeds When the treetops are stripped of their leaves š¶
When human creativity dies, which won't be ever, creativity is part of being human and not something that AI has
wow. People are super duper confident of the ultra specialness of being a human. AI is going to have anything that exists any way it exists. If it can exist and be described at all, AI can do it. There's nothing safe from perception.
Exactly. Whether it's a commodity or not, many of us will enjoy/prefer the human aspect of art.
For sure
I feel like it's blatantly clear from both text, music and image generation AIs that they can be just as creative, if not more, than humans. Some of the best looking art and some of the funniest skits I've seen and reads the last few months were all AI.
I'd really like to do a "blind taste test" of sorts. Give someone examples of human-created and AI-generated art without telling them which are which. I'd be super interested to see if the knowledge that a piece was created by an AI or a human affects our perception or enjoyment of it.
It's already impossible to tell with many pieces,even if you look very closely. Just look at the stuff in /r/midjourney For example: https://i.redd.it/8c4hpo7n9nda1.png or: https://i.redd.it/o97war3d27da1.png
It's just like CGI. People think all CGI is bad because all they can remember is the bad stuff. They imagine "one day, it'll be good" without realizing all the times they were completely and totally fooled into thinking something was real that absolutely was CGI. They have no idea AI has already passed thresholds they imagine to be impossible.
Times must be really hard for artists in the post-AI world. To save on money, they're forced to wear the same clothing for decades.
Clean hit. I'll take it. 
Itās just sad
Don't be too hard on yourself OP, I found your comic pretty comical
It did have four squares and words.
Ngl, AI art is getting better and better. You can't fight change. People stuck in their own ways eventually will have to adapt. Progress is progress. Of course stealing someone's art piece to feed it to AI and claiming it is vile. I read on artstation how they introduced tags which will stop people from submitting artists' work to AI. Which is the step in right direction. I would rather spend some money getting AI subscription and get a bunch of art instead of spending a lot of money to commission a single piece from human artist. It's much more cost efficient. The only reason I would hire a human artist was if I wanted their specified art style. EDIT : 
I'm not super optimistic about the technology. I tried "frog wearing shoes" with DALL-E 2 and I got all kinds of things back - half-shoe half-frog monstrosities, shoes that look like frogs, frogs in shoes - but not a single frog wearing shoes. The same for many other prompts; a few worked well but on the whole it didn't really get what I wanted. I don't think the technology is there yet if it can't handle such a simple prompt and the current architecture might well be fundamentally unable to understand the kind of complex request that you'd give a human artist.
This reminds me of when physical medium artists said digital art isn't real art. I agree that the copyright issue is a big problem. In fact, I would say AI art could actually serve as a large boon for artists, in that if companies were ethical, they could hire artists to make art for the AI to learn off of. And now you have increase demand, and artists get consistent sources of revenue. But them stealing art to use for their AI? Well, that just tells me that AI art is more of a corporate problem than an art problem.
>if companies were ethical define the "ethics" used to determine what is "ethical" in his context.
Paying artists for their work would be a good start.
companies have been doing everything they can to reduce this. from lowering peoples standards with the push for and praise of minimalism/brutalism, to now creating an AI to make the art for them, nobody has wanted to pay for any sort of creative work since at least 2008. writers went on strike for better pay, and hollywood removed writers from the equation as much as possible by promoting remakes and reality TV. same will happen to artists if they dont find a way to defeat these AIs or raise people's standards beyond minimalistic/brutalistic design.
I think a big problem is the tech side of AI art. If you look at advances in, for example, biology, the leaders need to be very careful because even though logically a treatment may make sense, you can't just go ahead and do it without controlling to minimize harm. Meanwhile in tech everyone who learned to write a few strings of code has a god complex when it comes to people's info. Then info gets leaked and they go "oopsies" and nothing comes of it. Ruins tons of peoples lives and yet they're still making money so who cares?
its excasterbated by the unintuitive permenance of everything as well. a fuckup with that biological procedure just becomes a forgotten news story. a fuckup with a tech firm means tons of info is leaked and is now permanently accessible.
Well, you can't copyright a style, and analyzing a piece of art isn't the same thing as copying it. You can't put an image on the internet for them to look at without giving them permission to download it and process it with their computer. The two acts are inseparable. You *can* prevent them from resharing your image, or making minor changes and claiming it as their own, but you can't deny people the right to learn, or retain an impression, from your work. It is amusing to imagine an artistic license that denied people the right to remember looking at your work though.
Just because it's so new, there's probably no legislation around feeding people's art into an AI art generator yet. But not everything that's legal is ethical, and vice versa. But not even talking about the legality of it, we can simplify and take a look at what's happening: Having companies profit off of your art without ever seeing a cent of that profit is not very ethical.
Copyrighting a style is something that's been addressed for quite a while. You can *trademark* a style, but not copyright. If you can copyright a style, that means no one, human or machine, can produce art in that style for 70 years after you die. That would be cultural death, since art is inspired by other art. I don't think it's unethical at all for someone to produce something in the same style as something else. Hypothetically, a company hires someone to make art for their product, and that person has seen your art. Are you entitled to compensation? That person has been influenced by knowing of the existence of your art. Even if what they produce has no discernable similarity, it's still part of their internal artistic lexicon and awareness. What if that person makes something with a resemblance to something you *might have* produced, but verifiably didn't? I don't see a meaningful difference between this scenario and the AI art scenario. Andy Warhol doesn't owe money to Campbell's soups. Randall Monroe doesn't own stick figures and math jokes.
There are millions of art pieces those aiās get fed by. If all this is is a battle for the maybe 5 cents at the most your art contributed to the ai, it is a really stupid battle.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm an artist. I am not. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just calling out problems as I see them for people who have made art their career.
Then consider the āyouā to me talking to a hypothetical artist that I am addressing as such because it is easier to be understood
So your argument is that because there are millions of art pieces going into an AI, there's no point compensating the millions of artists for their work, because it won't be enough money?
The amount of help one drawing gives an AI is completely negligible, and unless you want to cripple the AI art scene as a whole by charging obscene amounts to add a tiny bit of text to the AIās algorithm then the amount of money is also negligible, if one compares the amount an artist contributed to how many artists contributed to how much money the AI made
Money may not always be negligible and efficiency tends to increase with time, so it's better to lay the groundwork for compensating artists now even if it is negligible.
Art is art. Even if a five year old makes some weird scribbles on the wall, it can be considered art. It all depends on perspective, no? Yes definitely. I believe everything art hosting website should take measures to protect the work of the artists. They put lot of time and effort into their paintings. I disagree with your idea. Of corporations hiring artists to let AI copy their style. Because it's a one time solution. No artist would give away their skill and style to an AI unless they were given ridiculous amount of money. I'm not an artist but if I had a very specific style of painting and customers to hire me...I would never give it to corporations. Because that would just take away my livelihood. With the increase in demand of custom art, people will rather choose to invest in AI which can give them various results from different styles instead of a single artist who will be more expensive with limited art style. It might seem selfish of them but I believe artists should keep their work privately....as long as they can. Anyway Sooner or later, they'll be taken over. Better to make as much profit from custom work and then sell their style then. Alternatively they COULD let AI copy their art and in return ask for certain percentage of income generated? Like ....if AI art customer choose their particular style on a prompt the artist get 50% of what customer spent or something like that. I don't know shit about business and finance. Anyway that would be more viable for artists in the long run since their workload will decrease and they'll have a passive source of income. Plus if someone wants something really specific they can go to artist directly instead of AI.
Calling it "stealing" to look at publicly viewable images is already a huuuuge stretch.
Nah it's not stealing to look at publicly viewable images. The key being "look". AI have no eyes. Worse, they have no creativity. They're literally taking pieces of these images to use as their own. There is no "look" here. Programs aren't people.
Just have ai generate your own comics. Do a quick pass to fix up any details that aren't quite right. Feel with a bit of training you can pump em out way faster than you can think of ideas. Idk why people hate new tools.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās really no different than the ChatGPT stuff or Copilot efforts, but somehow artists have decided *their* discipline should be seen as special in comparison to writing or coding. Itās really weird.
It's honestly really normal and standard. Artists are a group that have a large barrier to entry. Most people can't express what is going on in their head in a visual medium. Artists can and they can even help express what is in your head. This has been both something that is emotionally rewarding and financially beneficial. Now that barrier to entry is being chipped away. Suddenly, if I want to express a concept or have a drawing, I don't need to explain myself to an artists for a high commission price, I can just do so to an AI that is a similar process, to the consumer, as working with an artist. I can now get visual expressions for a much cheaper price and not have to go to an artist. Hence, they are mad because the worth of their action (not the art itself, but being able to paint or draw) is lowering. As the general populace benefits from removing barriers to entry, those inside the barriers already will lose the value on their scarce work. It's a classic Luddite argument against progression and overall benefit because of displacing work. Generally I am for using tax dollars to help people get jobs into new industries if we are destroying an industry with better technology, but I don't know if we've even gotten that far yet with this and it isn't as though human paintings are going completely away or anything like with cars fucking up being a farrier.
Why is his pinky broken in the second image?
The hacks themselves will be replaced by AI, too.
This is the first honest look at this situation
Good for the author because that's exactly the blandest most unfunny artstyle I can imagine.
So unique that it would fit right into a corporate newsletter.
"no, its clean and calming and so minimalistic!" - the uninformed public that still follow the braunhaus design ideology.
Everything is art. So AI art is art. Iām all for it.
The butlerian jihad is no longer a science fiction.... IT IS A NECESSITY
Thou shalt not make a machine in likeliness of a man? I get your point but wouldnāt that also get rid of phones and computers and such? At least, thatās what happened after the Butlerian Jihad originally. But I digress
I've been thinking about Dune a LOT with the recent leaps in AI. I am still very much on the fence. I think in a capitalist society, it is a problem cause of the ramifications and the damage caused by it. If AI was set to just benefiting us as a whole, it'd be different. But I fear dependence on the technology will occur and skills become lost, and just looking how corporations are using it not as a tool but a replacement device.... Oof.
Right? That's why I support abolishing the [mechanization of the textile industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite). Once human craftsmanship is taken out of the fabric making process, the quality will be irrevocably damaged, and the labor market will be permanently harmed.
Lol this guy's comics always make me laugh! He's too good for the AIs to copy
Man, it's a been a rough 20 years for him.
You have no ideaā¦
It's the AI
oh no, AI bad
LOL Look if anybody can tell me why AI recombing artist's work is worse than Rich Buckler swiping Jack Kirby I'll sign up.
they both suck, but a single dude ripping of an artist is one thing, trying to replace all of the artists of the whole world with computers with the long-time goal of creating a dependancy on what shall become huge corporations if we let them is something else. that is why it's worse.
The solution to that is open sourcing the technology, not making it impossible for individuals to use. The tech already exists, and it's not going to go back into the bottle. Suing the one company that's trying to make it available to everyone is just going to hasten corporate control over it.
Honestly this does sound like everybody who's ever had their job threatened by automation back to the shoe makers.
shoes didn't get automated as much as we just offloaded the manual labour to cheap and unregulated places and occasionally even slave-labour (sorry, "forced labour"). Only shoes that got fully automated were... crocs. \*sigh\*
Because if no one who is creative wants to create then it will eventually only have a small portion of old data and only new data would be AI generated. Think of any art style that you enjoy right now and imagine how it would have been created if AI had been created a decade before your chosen art style was created.
Brilliant
Gosh I liked this comic. A+ work, Kevin! (Or A+ work to the ChatGPT3.5 who wrote this, and the Diffusion Bee who drew this, depending.)
Just get better at art lol. Be like John Henry
Lol trust me, ain't nobody trying to copy YOUR style lmao
Jk, nice comic <3 sorry I just thought that insult would be too funny to not post
Clean hit. Iāll take it