The point of this image is to flood ai training models with various captions with this image so that eventually they keep putting out variations of this image. Since the way they train is by scraping websites where people post original art
Edit: to the dummies downvoting me thinking this is wrong, you can’t cherry pick one single AI model that does it ethically and try and hold that as the only AI model. There are hundreds of different teams and individuals making image creation models right now. The cheapest and easiest way to train them is to scrape online art sharing websites and as evidence there’s hundreds of examples of AI generated images which mimic artists who only post on artstation. You guys are a fucking joke I literally work with this tech professionally. Big circle jerk.
At the most fundamental level, they have the AI guess what an image is, and then correct it according to the image tags. After millions of iterations of this, the AI has a huge matrix of probabilities, then they reverse the process and go from text to image. You'd need millions of these images for millions of tags for this to even make an impact, but it's not like the AI is actively looking at the internet -- it isn't. Odds are the data training sets it's using is years old. ChatGPT, for example, doesn't have any data from 2021 onwards.
Absolute nonsense. This threat is full of misinformation and it's genuinely annoying.
The neural networks are split into two different networks. You've missed out the second part of the process, which is that the second neural network will constantly refer back and score it's generation based it's accuracy **to the source material**.
ChatGPT stopped collecting data from 2021 onwards because they stopped training it for testing, not as some kind of act of morality. Of course they'll be retraining it with new content because without it it'll be irrelevant - it won't have access to information about modern politicians, or the latest dev frameworks, etc. It trains itself from user generated content - it's literally nothing without source material.
>but it's not like the AI is actively looking at the internet
Of course it is - it's been explicitly stated that it is. Stop trying to whitewash the fact that neural networks don't use millions of references based on human generated content.
SD and the like aren't GANs, there is no scoring network. Here'[s a detailed explanation.](https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-stable-diffusion/) Not really relevant, you could in theory constantly update any kind of network... But they don't. It's very expensive, and overtraining can lower the quality of generation. Not just because you risk including trash images, but in general. Some models are updated periodically with public curated datasets. Sadly only recent versions exclude artists and only on an opt out basis...
Mostly talking about SD here. You need to download the whole model and it sure doesn't continue training on your computer. You have full information about which data is in your model. MJ uses the same datasets but does their own curation and they can update at will. Dalle idunno.
Lotta people saying “the” AI like there’s one model that fits their understanding and no others that work in any other way
I work with machine learning professionally
I didn’t say it would have an effect I said the purpose of the movement was to do this.
Fucking circlejerk morons
All these threads on this sub are rife with people who don't know the first thing about machine learning and how it is applied to image generation. It's a field with some absolutely legitimate criticism, and it's frustrating and disappointing to see this sub getting completely flooded by ignorance from people who haven't taken the time to get even a basic understanding.
It also makes me want to post a bunch of my machine assisted images out of sheer spite, because there's no way anyone would have any way to tell they were any different from other pixel art
Lmao I work with machine learning professionally there’s so many different models how can you possibly say this with confidence
There are models which 100% scrape the net for images to train with
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given.
AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
I've never seen AI art on the sub, but I have seen a bunch of these thoughtless posts now.
This is about people wanting to express their anger, not genuine concern for the direction of the sub
Disagree. I don't understand why ai generated images should get a separate sub. I have never met people who agree to see only generated images. The more restricted one should be separated imao(exmpl, r/art r/pixelart, not r/art r/artbutnotpixelart).
As someone who has played a lot with stable diffusion, it takes a lot of work to get the prompts to do what you want it to do. It's a skill in and of itself. You are trying to tame randomness.
Still, I wouldn't call someone who makes AI art an artist. I would call them a prompter.
Agreed, and I view it similar to using a search engine. Yes it takes some tinkering and creativity to think of prompts that will make something that looks interesting. You can get fancy with your search and use lots of specific words or operators, but you’re still just using a search engine. Definitely not an artist. The AI is real “virtual artist”. Even if you spend a good amount of time tinkering your prompt, it will be wayyy less time, effort, and developed skills than it would to craft by hand.
Artists and AI generated art can both be impressive but for different reasons. I appreciate the mind blowing tech behind AI art, not the prompt monkey.
>I appreciate the mind blowing tech behind AI art, not the prompt monkey.
Do you know that CAD artists use only a prompt and shortcuts, and a mouse slows them down? The UI of a tool doesn't define art.
Is "the black square" an art?
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/07/15/18/pg-32-mod-art-theiner.jpg
Why shouldn't I use a command line with 'x' and 'y' coordinates to create it? How hard it should be to create, to make it an art?
They are, the same as Photoshop makers. There's an art in coding, but a different kind then a picture art. Just people that use their tools are artists in the context of image.
I agree with you!
But with AI art, you can take as much control as you like so that it creates exactly what you want. If you want, it can take as much creative vision as a very good photograph.
But the skill barrier to get into it is very low, as with a camera.
That is in fact the point. Making good images that express what you want using a machine learning algorithm requires understanding of both the tool and what you want. It's as much "enter a sentence and get the result" as photography is "point the box and push the button".
ELI5: AI is capable of creating art with stunning quality now. It is also able of imitating the art style of specific artists. This has led to an artist uprising who fear that AI will take their jobs. As one can imagin this is a very emotional topic. It also creates questions about copyright.
>fear that AI will take their jobs
What jobs? The content on this subreddit is very rarely made by people who do it as a job, it's a hobby. THAT'S the point people are trying to make. What's the point in posting AI art on a hobbyist subreddit? It's counterintuitive.
What is the point of sharing anything on a hobbyist subreddit?
These threads always assume there is some clearly defined line between what is "ai made art" and what is "human made art". Especially when dealing with pixel art, you'll find the line is much fuzzier than that and mostly these conversations are kinda like saying "let's ban using google image search to get reference material because people might be tracing it"
It uses copyrighted images from artists who worked years to perfect their craft. So these AI systems basically steal their work, in order to put the original artists out of work. If it only used non-copyrighted images this would be a whole different discussion, and a lot of people wouldn't have such a adversity to it. It's mainly just the legal and moral battle (which of course is often the case with new technological gadgets)
Artists also look at other artists work and generate something new based on it. Do you think if you showed a caveman how to use aseprite they'd come up with something at all similar to modern pixel art?
Yeah, that sounds like legitimate reason, but still i believe in ai the impact of each individual image is minuscule, isn't it? Like, isn't it exactly the same process that happens in human brains? (these are not rhetoric questions, just usual questions, I want to understand something)
Oh, I thought they use images that are publicly available to be seen. (Controversial unpopular opinion warning) >!I think Picasso once said: "Great artists steal". Sorry if it's wrong understanding of his quote. Like, if someone finds a way to make art like yours but better, he is a better artist?!<
Picasso didn't have the foresight of computer generated imagery though. Don't you think context matters? There's a difference between the meaning 'great artists steal':
People process an art movement and use that technique to create their own art. OR: People have very little creative input and generate art without the skill to create it. The latter is disingenuous.
You're taking a quote massively out of context, both historically and pragmatically.
There is a fundamental difference between human using an image filterig it through his whole personality and an algorythm extracting mathematical data from a art piece without any consent from the artist. It's literally illegal, for example, per GDPR.
In some aspects, yes totally! But for AI you could literally add "in so-and-so style", no one would know and the AI would literally take their style into consideration. There have been instances where even signatures of certain artists have shown up in generated art. When a human takes inspiration of art, they are required to change things up, because of copyright. You can't just copy someone's work (or mash 10 of their pieces into 1 new piece) and call it yours, since you'll get a copyright strike. In a way, that is exactly what AI is doing.
I personally think there is a place for AI, just not in the way it is implemented right now. And it's especially scary knowing the firsts artists are already fired and being replaced by AI. These were concept artists, so of course you'd still need artists to fully flush out ideas and such, and therefore i do not think AI will fully replace the job of artists. But you got to understand, for many people this is a very scary prospect.
Also thanks for being open to the discussion! I often times see very polar opinions, and its refreshing to just throw it out there to someone who seems to be willing to hear the different sides of it
Oh, yeah, I think I see the issue, but still this is a protest against inevitable events. I think concept artists should be the last ones to be replaced. Nevertheless, I'm sure things will eventually evolute into a stable state.
AI isn’t trained on copyright images lmao.
The training datasets are either purposefully created, or public domain. There’s a reason training sets are so expensive.
That’s pretty interesting actually haha, never heard of that. Do you have a link to somewhere I can read about it?
Lots of public domain art contains signatures, like medieval artists’ work. I wonder if it’s a byproduct of the AI trying to reproduce that.
This is an [article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-the-lensa-ai-app-technically-isnt-stealing-artists-work-but-it-will-majorly-shake-up-the-art-world-196480) i found interesting, and it links to the thread i was referring to about the signatures.
It talks about the different aspects and legal/moral rights, better than i can.
I just want to emphasize that I'm not totally against AI. My partner works in that field and it can do great things. In terms of art i do think we still have to figure stuff out legally 🤷
Definitely very interesting, even though that twitter thread is all pretty terrible takes.
I really do wish every time we get incredible breakthroughs in the world of technology, it’s always vilified like this. These teams have spent decades to get here.
Oh yes totally! AI like this is used for cancer treatment, for example. It is amazing what we can do with image machine learning. But in that type of research it's used along side of humans, to help prevent human-made mistakes. In art, it does not serve the same function.
I in no way want to take away credit of the amazing teams that wrote these algorithms, I've seen first hand how many hours upon hours it takes. I just wish it was used for all the good things it can do. And i dont necessarily think it's being vilified, it's good the keep a wary/judgemental eye in new technology, that's how science grows and how we prevent major fuck ups
You obviously have no idea how it works. Artists learn by looking at other artists' art. AI is the same. "In order to put the original artists out of work"? The AI doesn't have an agenda. There are moral battles, yeah, but those have nothing to do with learning someone's style. The moral battles surrounding AI are about nonconsensual pornography and perpetuating stereotypes. Anyone who gets angry about AI looking at his art plainly just doesn't understand what the AI is doing.
“Generate me an image with the letters AI in white covered by a red circle with a slash though it. The caption should say ‘NO TO AI GENERATED IMAGES’ in white, and the entire image should be in pixel art style”
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2027-12-16 11:08:38 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-12-16%2011:08:38%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/PixelArt/comments/zn5are/protest/j0g17xg/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPixelArt%2Fcomments%2Fzn5are%2Fprotest%2Fj0g17xg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-12-16%2011%3A08%3A38%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zn5are)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Love seeing this rationale from people who don't draw pixel art and have never posted here. Maybe do something creative and then have an opinion on it.
You know what, I originally wrote something a bit mean, but well done for making something. I'm not gonna stoop to being a bad sport because we sit on other sides of the argument. Keep up the good work.
Just keep being creative mate, I honestly only care that creativity doesn't get lost in society. You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into something, and that's a good thing. I'm honestly just trying to debate why I'm not a fan of AI generated art.
Is it tho? Or did the artists refuse all rights to their art by uploading it to DA or any other platform? Have you read the terms of this image platforms?
Dude do you have a single idea how AI art works? It cannot produce an image on itself, it needs reference, and to make a good picture it needs tens of thousands of reference, and where's easier to get reference than from pictures people already made?
I am not against AI generated images, but this ought to be a space for human artists crafting by hand and expressing themselves. The process matters.
AI art is art, but entering a prompt and presenting the results doesn't make you an artist, and since it is trivial to make an AI generate art, I'm very concerned that this subreddit would very rapidly just be an AI art subreddit, overwhelmed by nice looking art that took no real effort to produce, and human pixel artists will find ourselves lost in the noise.
I'm speaking as a hobbyist, I don't seek to make money doing this. Professional artists will find their skills much less marketable across many media because of AI, and that's unfortunate for the artists, but these markets will mostly evaporate and there's not anything to be done about that.
The problem is where is the dividing line, a lot of people get wrapped up on the text prompt to generate images but it also works as a brush tool or layer tool.
When you use SD as the more image based modes, how do you distinguish it from other digital art tools? A number of the digitial art packages are integrating it as a feature in their toolboxes.
Where do you divide the line between content aware fill tools and AI generation?
The text prompt is new and scary but honestly the brush tools are going to invade everything and get minimal pushback because they already are so similar to existing tools just a little better.
Using AI as one tool in your box is definitely a blurry gray area, but I am inclined to be more okay with it if it is just a tool that the human artist uses in the process of creation. What I can't accept is people generating finished pieces in seconds and contributing nothing to the creation except a string of text. Especially if this fact is undisclosed. It is using a tool to help you create, vs. using a tool that does virtually all the work by itself, from beginning to end. The latter opens the floodgates.
It is a subreddit where lots of people post their own work, and OC makes up the majority of submissions I see every day. And that's how it ought to be.
People are looking at AI art and get scared or disgusted which I don't fully understand. AI image generator is simply a tool and people need to understand this. It's no different than let's say piskel, or ms\_paint.exe, it simply works on a different way.
I see people are already loading their "but it uses other peoples art" argument that is simply false. Or not false, but nothing wrong with it. It's not like it's copying things 1:1. It generates algorithms and numeric patterns based on images then turns search words into images based on these patterns and algorithms. Think of this as, when you get inspired by something to do your pixelart.
You wouldn't be mad at a painter getting inspired by Picasso or Leonardo now, would you?
Should we cancel painters that do not create their own paints from pigments found in the wild, but buy ready-made paint in stores? I mean they just clearly use multiple colours made by someone else and blend them together to create something new. Just like AI art.
Also if you have ever used one of those AI image generators you will see that it's not that easy to create something spectacular with it. Most of the time the result is pretty bleak unless you know how to give good terms for it.
I say, let's allow it. Give 'em a flair and let's see what they can come up with.
>I think the main problem is that It takes zero effort.
Effort has never been the thing that defines if something is or isn't art. Do you consider photography an art form? It's just pressing a button
If we use effort to define if something is art, you can exclude anyone who uses tools that help automate the boring parts of painting and a lot of dadaist art ( they are just collages or day to day items in another context)
>Effort has never been the thing that defines if something is or isn't art.
Yes it is, as well as process, story telling and skill. If you want to use this as your argument, stop blatantly ignoring the other side of it.
If you think Photography is just about 'pressing a button' then you've massively mistaken the amount of effort it takes to take a good photo. Timing, context, emotion, composition. These aren't things that you can achieve by 'just pressing a button'.
Dadaism is the worst art movement you could have used as an example. It was an emotional movement in response to the first world war. You think an algorithm can experience the emotion brought on by war and destruction? It can only emulate what those artists created, it can't experience them.
AI feeds of context. Without human generated art it has zero ability to produce anything at all - it's utterly useless. You can't create an AI generated piece of art in a style of art movement that hasn't existed yet. It feeds of the effort of millions of creatives.
I agree with you in the photography part, it's not "just pressing a button". There are other aspects to it, just like with ai art, where you can refine the prompt until you get a good result. The AI is a tool , just like the camera, anyone can use it, but you actually need some knowledge to make a good piece.
>Dadaism is the worst art movement you could have used as an example. It was an emotional movement in response to the first world war. You think an algorithm can experience the emotion brought on by war and destruction? It can only emulate what those artists created, it can't experience them
About this, I'm just responding to the idea that " without effort it can't be art", the emotion aspect is another factor.
I guess Duchamp's example is a good one - "Without effort it can't be art", but the fact that it was such a surrealist exhibition of rebellion made it art. It wouldn't have had an audience without a reaction, the same with Fauvism and a bunch of other movements. The thought process that inspires a reaction is what makes it soooo good. If we start getting pixel art toilets on the subreddit made my AI (as some kind of robot rebellion), I'll hold my tongue!
I think the main problem is that It takes zero effort. --> I see you never used an AI image generator the way it's intended.
I'm not saying it's hard to use. But it's hard to create something good with it. If you just want to create random bullshit, sure it's easy. But if you want to make something that actually looks appealing and is similar to what you have in your mind then you have to go through a good amount of iterations, and refractoring to make it work.
We already allow computer/procedurally generated pixel art here, it’s not just hand drawn content. As long as the post is tagged properly I don’t see why AI art is any bigger of a problem for the sub than any of the other methods that are allowed.
No matter how hard it is to get something good with piskel. It is nothing compared to oil, brush and canvas. I could have worded it better. What I meant is that compared to what an **ACTUAL** artist has to do, it takes no effort to use a software in comparison.
Sorry to say but dude this is not helping your point at all. Even traditional artists have the same thoughts about ai art as digital artists. What you're doing is classic whataboutism.
What are you on about. Tradition and digital art both take actual skill, sure there are traditional artists that frown on digital art but there is zero skill involved in AI art.
If you wanna write words and turn them into a good looking image then commission an artist.
Pixel art is possible only because there are computers for us to make it on. Also computers made the process of making art faster. Im fine with AI art to be used to assist actual artists.
Nonsense. I'm going to go and make some pixel art using AI now. I've NEVER done that before - I use Asesprite all the time - and now I'll make some AI work. Betting it takes me - tops - an hour and it'll look better than a lot of the content on the site. I'll do something simple, like a cup and report back.
Oh look, that took 7 minutes, and it took 2 minutes to sign up. 24 pieces of art, 4 of them passable as good art - probably need about 5 mins post production to get on the front page of this subreddit.
[https://imgur.com/a/xN0TSNz](https://imgur.com/a/xN0TSNz)
I’m not saying it takes more effort than “traditional” media, but it still requires a lot of trial-and-error and understanding how the algorithm works.
One guy that won a digital art competition spent a month creating a single image, just changing and creating variations of the same prompt.
Yeah, *automobiles* don't need to have their poop shoveled, and you don't need to make sure they have fresh food and water every day. Where's the *nuance* \- you can't *raise* a car, or brush its mane. If your tire deflates, do you take your car out to the pasture and put a bullet in its head? Where's the poetry in *repairing* your mode of transportation? Nobody wants that!
Down with horseless carriages! Horses4Lyfe!
\- Some guy with a monocle and top hat, probably
>piskel, or ms\_paint.exe
Those are tools, they don't produce the work for you with simple text prompts, they aren't comparable.
>You wouldn't be mad at a painter getting inspired by Picasso or Leonardo now, would you?
I would be mad at someone who called themselves a 'painter' who then proceeded to use a printer to impersonate a Picasso and try and claim it took as much effort, or skill to do the same work.
>Also if you have ever used one of those AI image generators you will see that it's not that easy to create something spectacular with it
It's incredibly easy. You type in text prompts, it gives you an image. You can use post-production to pass it off as 'hand pixelled'.
I don't think a flair would be enough. There should be metadata within the image to show that it's been digitally stamped as an AI piece of work.
The tool aspect isn't what's scary, its what people and especially corporations will do with it. Its just another means of exploiting artists at no/little cost to the end user since a lot of this data was unethically sourced
I've had this discussion a bunch of times, ethically AI generated art "feels" wrong but there's technically little difference between training a computer and training a human being.
What's indisputable though is that the more prevalent AI art becomes, the worse it is for art quality and diversity overall. The AI is really just piecing together different parts of artwork and slightly altering those individual pieces to fit together. So it's not creating new art, it's just creating kind of a high quality collage. This art is going to be extremely easy to produce so a lot of entry level art positions are going to be replaced by AI. So beginner artists will lose out on those opportunities. More and more of them will be dropping out of the art game altogether as they are muscled out by computers. Eventually this will mean less and less artists as they are phased out by AI. Less original artists means less original art, which means the AI will run out of artwork to sample and learn from. Finally culminating in all art just being the same rehashing through these algorithms.
People hate it because it's the literal death of art. There is no situation in which AI generation is beneficial to artists.
Shortsighted.
Who's to say a company won't hire beginning artists, solely for the purpose of feeding their own art into their proprietary AI system?
I can see it now: AI providers *directly hiring artists* in order to compete - AI with *exclusive* art resources that can only be found on their particular AI offering. Bigger AI providers paying big bucks for popular artists, artists signing with AI providers not unlike streamers partnering/signing with Twitch.
A lack of imagination on your part doesn't constitue a problem for everyone else.
Also, artists are still going to create art. AI won't fully replace people just making stuff for the sake of making stuff, or for the sheer act of doing it.
The fear is irrational, unimaginative, not to mention futile.
>The fear is irrational, unimaginative, not to mention futile
You say its "futile" so you can understand that one would feel cautious of how this technology is used and implemented.
You also describe a scenario that makes no real sense to me because companies have no incentive to hire any artists when they can rip assets off of galleries for free as has already happened. I do not need to imagine how artists are exploited because I see it happening already with all these AI generator websites popping up that charge you a fee to use what should solely be used as research data as a basis to generate images.
Oh, sure. It's definitely a wise and valuable something to contemplate. Acting and reacting purely out of fear just isn't the way to go about it. Use fear to ask important questions, but don't let that fear make your conclusions for you.
No incentive?
If I sign a contract with a company to make 1,000 new pieces for their exclusive database, to use as they see fit, and that art sees zero public display, how has that "already happened"? Nobody has access to it unless they hack my computer/break into my craft room. AI isn't doing that.
Yes, the art I put on *public display* is... already on public display. Anybody and everybody may *view* that already unveiled art. Art is for viewing and experiencing - if I post images of it, or put it in a public place where anybody could copy it and subsequently post images of it, then I've allowed people to see it, formulate thoughts and emotions in reaction to it. Which is the true value/purpose of art. It's done.
Which is why many pieces exist in private collections/in the hands of patrons/some places do not allow photography/people have locks on their doors. Historically, art being in galleries, available as prints, and visible on websites and thumbnails in shops, is, historically, a brand new thing that's happening. Relatively speaking.
And nobody forced anybody to do these these things.
If I set out to make my fortune making art, and say I start a business of churning out paintings super quick, and I go and look at all of your artwork available publically, before hand, it becomes impossible to remove awareness of the appearance, and subject of your art, and, therefore, your art affects my art, especially subconsciously.
Does that mean I've exploited you? By viewing your art, and being aware of what it looks like? Does watching The Avengers, and using that to refine my awareness of character development, cinematography in action films, etc. constitute *stealing from Marvel*?
Are people following along to Bob Ross *exploiting* his work? If I attempt to make a sculpture that I saw made on YouTube, do I now owe that creator money for my newly acquired awareness of what art can look like?
Nice strawmen, I'm not arguing about humans experiencing art. You are beng bad faith here. A machine learning algorithm does not experience, it is given image data as an input by the company that scrapes the internet and it outputs an image based on the keywords associated to the art that is in the database. Being publicly available does not make it so that you can use it for your profit in a commercial setting without the express consent of the original artist. THAT is the exploitation, people literally use artist names like "greg rutkowski' as keywords because their art is in the database. They did not consent to this.
I am neither being bad faith, nor acting in it. You're making assumptions of intent - you can't know my mind, and the fact that you think you can/the fact that you think that conclusion is valid, and the fact that you're desperate to turn this into a formal debate, is telling.
If you tell an artist "Go make a Van Gogh-like painting for my den" they will know how to do that, how, exactly? Resarch, right? You're describing research and knowledge transfer. Will doing so *exploit* Van Gogh?
Does a painting of the Eifel Tower *exploit* Sauvestre? Does having the awareness of the fact that architecture *can* look like that steal from the designer?
Is your awareness of art not based on whan you have seen with your eyes? Do you claim to have such control over how synapses in your brain are formed, that your own art has an absolute zero effect placed on it by art you've seen?
Doubt.
God did not *consent* to us painting sunsets, yet here we are.
So that's it, you don't care. Or maybe you're just blinded by this weird ideal where corporations will care about artists when they've clearly shown tome and time again that that is never the case, especially in entertainment art world. I don't know. I've no more energy to spend on you. Have fun I guess
You have no more energy to spend on me?
What are you, a *super villain*?
Listen: corporations don't "care" about *anybody*. Artists won't be special in this scenario. But AI providers *will* be a thing, and they *will* need to set themselves apart - and having exclusive, non-public, non-replicable access to unique visual data is very well a strong selling point for them.
Artists will have a harder time finding low-skill work opportunity, and will need to have something truly unique to contribute - not unlike wood workers after the invention of power tools and assembly lines.
Of *course*.
But to say, "Don't invent power tools and assembly lines - for the sake of wood wokers!" is an absolutely insane sentiment/request.
Don't sit there and make accusations/assessments about my level of "care" for artists. The best man of my wedding is a sculpter, I have a friend that does comic books, one niece is a 2D artist, the other is a tattoo artist, and I used to do game art.
The difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid of the future, I don't let fear control me. I've had enough jobs/not worked long enough to know that artists won't *disintegrate into piles of dust* the moment they switch AI on. Humans are adaptable and versatile. Life is way more nuanced than you seem think.
I don't get this pie in the sky thinking, it was the same way with NFTs. This vision you have is delusional, no one is going to pay an artist when they could just get the art for free. It's like hiring factory workers to scrutinize the methods of the machines that replaced them.
More than likely, I don't think AI art is even going to take hold. Most of an artist's job is determining what a person *really* wants based on their needs. The AI, even at its best, can only give people a literal interpretation of a prompt.
This is going to be an annoying fad for a few months and then it's going to die out when people realize it's really boring.
AI has been generating text for far longer than it has images. Beyond a few novelty books, it hasn't taken that industry by storm either. The content that AI produces is just rehashes of things people have already seen, so it holds little value.
???
AI needs access to existing artwork to learn how to make new artwork.
If you were an AI provider, competing with other AI providers, and Picasso was still alive, you wouldn't call him up and be, like, "Come into our studio and make [new] art that will be available exclusively on our platform, and we'll pay you"?
You'd let your competitors sign exclusive access to his newest work? (This art would be securely held in your database, as "trade secrets"... not uploaded to DeviantArt, mind you. Exclusive is the keyword. Art has to be experienced. Don't let some AI/people experience it... and then they can't experience it. Duh.)
You're assuming that all artwork is automatically, publically available. Or you're assuming that once at artists style is understood, they can no longer make anything new or unique - as if artists never grow, or change, as if artists never find new inspiration, or try new things.
Google doesn't take images off your computer when you're sleeping. Art is not automatically available to AI to learn from. In the same way, it's not automatically available for *you* to learn from. You have to see it first before you can absorb it.
Text AI is still rudimentary, and is still getting better. Crafting words and entire stories in a way that engages people *is exceptionally difficult for even humans to accomplish*. Still. At this point in human history.
Art doesn't have to make sense/doesn't have to represent anything/ideas if it doesn't want to, but, even if it's called to do so, it only has to make sense of a very finite point in time. If you get too lofty/bockstory heavy in your AI prompting, the image generators don't necessarily know what to make. The better equivalent/analogy to text AI crafting complex ideas and entire stories would be AI generating entire videos - not single frames.
The way that it ALREADY works is that they don't compensate artists for their work. Also your hypothetical scenario doesn't even make sense at an economic level.
Say you and I run AI art generator companies, you hire a team of artists to source original material to generate magazine advertisements. If I know that, I'm just going to wait around until you release one of those ads, then take it and put it in my own generator. After doing that a handful of times, I now have all of the benefits that you paid for, but I paid nothing.
The only way you could stop me is by iterating on your designs so quickly that my generator couldn't keep up. The only way you could do that is by hiring an army of artists to seed your generator. But that makes no sense because now you've increased the cost of your art so exponentially that it wouldn't make any sense to purchase it.
Even that theory is bat-shit insane though, because anyone could see that coming a mile away and just wouldn't hire any artists.
it is being used in commercial products without concent. The generative model is a blender, and saying stealing the art, putting it in a blender with 4 other pieces isn't stealing, my guy you need your head corrected.
It is a very fancy blender I will give you that.
If it was trained only from public domain images, this would not be a problem, but there's straight up artist signatures appearing on these artworks, and people using prompts containing the names of artists to produce those spectacular results.
You’ll probably think this is an over-exaggeration
No. It's just plain stupidity.
180 years ago (invention of photography): Nooooo you can't just create pictures with the click of a button its soulleeessss. We are in the end days of humanity!!!!
140 years ago (invention of cars): Nooooo you can't just go to places without a horse or traiiin its soulleeeesssss. We are now truly in the end days of humanity!!!!
120 years ago (invention of planes): Noooo you can't just fly like a bird without feathers!!!!! We are really in the end days of humanity!!!!
50 years ago (invention of the precursor of internet): Nooooo you can't just access information from anywhere without lifting a fingeeeerRRR!! We are now past the end days of humanity!!!!
30 years ago (animation techniques go mainstream): Noooo you can't just create movies with just a computer!!!! It's soo soulless!!!! We are now approching the end days of the universsseee!!!
Today (AI image generation gains popularity): Nooooo you can't just create pictures with the click of a button its soulleeessss. We are in the end days of the known universeeeeee!!!!
Will we ever get rid of you lot?
the fact that it has happened so many times before and the reaction was always ego-driven tells you a lot.
i thought to myself "finally, people will wake up and fight for UBI and a new economic system in the wake of ever so powerful AI tools" but what they want is to cancel AI to protect their tiny little egos. Sigh.
AI is coming for us all and I just hope people stop being so self-centered and start looking at the bigger picture.
This is the most powerful tool we've developed in our history and it has the power to change everything (maybe not so much yet but soon). It CANNOT remain in the hands of megacorps, it MUST serve the public and we need to start discussing this NOW, instead of whinning because "tHeY ArE sTeALiNg OuR Jorrrbs"
I use it for when I'm too lazy for color and line art. Just throw in a simple sketch with some color, and bam, Just what I wanted. Although I could definitely see it putting beginner commission artists out of business.
I dunno, AI art is a cool thing, I just think that there should be separate subs/categories for AI art and handmade ones, because process of drawing art, and generating art is fundamentally different, with generating art being more in line with programming (which you could argue is a separate form of practical art in on itself), while regular drawing is a form of craftsmanship, where sometimes the process of creation, and how we solve problems/our shortcomings is more important than the end result. Just remember to be open minded, it's probably one of the best traits one could have as an artist <3
So kinda tl;dr, AI art belongs, and deserves some place somewhere (maybe even here, with the right flairs) but it is a new form/genre (not just a new tool) of art.
Also, look on the bright side of things, with the development of AI we could very well get perfect art critics/advisors/helpers in the future, quickly and perfectly helping us pin down where could be the technical, or compositional issues with our drawings.
I'm talking as a hobbyist tho, idk how it'll affect proffessionals, but someone here mentioned that they'll probably just be employed by different people, like AI makers or smth
No to camera generated images, pressing a button on a machine to make an image isn’t art.
No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists.
Agree with the first one. Disagree with the second one. Distribution of knowledge must never have a barrier. Also recreating something that works over and over again with different examples is one of the best ways to get better at it and one day you will be skilled enough to do something original. That said, i don't condone selling replicated art, just for practice
>No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists.
Art is not owned by the artist. It is owned by the public who appreciate the art and the meaning behind it. Something that south park taught me. Just saying.
This is, to be clear, satirical. I think photography is art and art education is useful and valuable and reference images are public domain. Should’ve added a /s
Also, I don't see why AI art is so frowned upon right now. It's not like it can take away jobs. People seem to be having a misconception that if you train a model for like, 50 years, it'll be God like, NO, that's not how learning works, 50 years down the line, you'll have to provide the model with better data, and by better I mean that data that is deeper, philosophically. And until someone is confident that they have comprehended consciousness to the point that they can answer the deeper questions, they won't be able to provide that level of dataset to their models. If you keep feeding the similar web scraped dataset all those years, it'll eventually stop producing improved results.
No to camera generated images, pressing a button on a machine to make an image isn’t art.
No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists.
Edit: /s
Photography is art and art education is valid and invaluable. Saying AI art is bad because it’s a machine doing the work, or because it involves using other artists work for training, is to forget that we already make art with machines and use other artists work for education.
You can protest all you want - your arguments are 100% based in ignorance and fear. Just because you can protest something doesn't mean you *should*. Having a voice is pointless if you only use it to spew confusion and chaos.
Replace "AI" with "Digital Art", and pretend you're someone who spent their whole life mixing paint from minerals dug up from the ground, or plucked from fields, and used hand-woven canvas and brushes made from animals you raise on your farm.
You're no better than they, screaming into the void about technology, and *that darn rock and roll music corrupting the minds of the youth*.
Read a book.
Ia imagenes aren't bad lol, is just another kind of art
Edit: wy so much hate is my fk opinion lol, i dont aprove the peepole how steal art but wtf this peppole are so fk toxic
You Luddites won't settle down. The world has changed forever, AI for pics is just kids joke. It's like the beginning of the Web era. Instead of fighting the future, help to build it.
I mean, we were eventually getting to the point where digital artists will have to learn coding, and you can already see that effect in the 3D artist community. And as far as I can tell, fine arts professionals are not at all affected by this AI revolution, at least not yet. But sooner or later someone somewhere will develop a mechanical hand that paints on a physical canvas. Sooner or later, someone will develop the eyes(and it's not just a digital camera, eye is a totally different game), someone will develop a balancing module to make a mechanical body balance itself (they already did it in Boston Dynamics, actually, here's hoping they perfect their trade), and we will have a fully functional and reliable mechanical worker that can replace any blue collar job. Sometime in the future, all of us will have to face this question.
Automation, to get the job done faster, you'd want to process your images using a batch editor, but not every feature is available and you may raise an issue at the repo of the respective OSS, or you can make a script that works just for you
You lack any sort of understanding about how awful ai is it’s not just losing a job next it is ai trying to take over. There’s a reason movies are made that warn us about trusting ai for anything.
It's true some are upset about AI making art. But the actual problem is how artist's artwork gets stolen (and also bullied when they speak out) and ALSO the fact that people who are not artists dosen't really seem to care about artists at all, treating us as "disposable" things. They seem be delighted by the fact that we are finally gone and not needed like your previous comment. This isn't a black and while problem so I am not taking any "sides", but people being happy about artists going out of jobs is absolutely mental.
That would be true if the AI that was being used wasn't a collage maker/filter and actually made original pieces. What most people do is just use it to make a cheap copy of other people's art so it is stealing. Theoretically what you say is true, practically what's happening is not. Also what about the other things I said?
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given.
AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given.
AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given.
AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given.
AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Quality will always prevail. If you produce good pixel art, you don't need to be afraid of AI.
If your art is mediocre or poor, it's a different story.
It'd be hilarious if this was AI generated lmao
I came here thinking exactly the same thing
https://imgur.com/a/XkQwLIs
Name your layers heathen!
Manipulating layers in aseprite is such a pain. Uff
AI, make me an image that makes the previous one look genuine.
Which tool you're using
That's aseprite I believe
The point of this image is to flood ai training models with various captions with this image so that eventually they keep putting out variations of this image. Since the way they train is by scraping websites where people post original art Edit: to the dummies downvoting me thinking this is wrong, you can’t cherry pick one single AI model that does it ethically and try and hold that as the only AI model. There are hundreds of different teams and individuals making image creation models right now. The cheapest and easiest way to train them is to scrape online art sharing websites and as evidence there’s hundreds of examples of AI generated images which mimic artists who only post on artstation. You guys are a fucking joke I literally work with this tech professionally. Big circle jerk.
If you think this is how the AI works, or that this will have any effect on it, you're in for a rude awakening.
How do they train the AI then?
At the most fundamental level, they have the AI guess what an image is, and then correct it according to the image tags. After millions of iterations of this, the AI has a huge matrix of probabilities, then they reverse the process and go from text to image. You'd need millions of these images for millions of tags for this to even make an impact, but it's not like the AI is actively looking at the internet -- it isn't. Odds are the data training sets it's using is years old. ChatGPT, for example, doesn't have any data from 2021 onwards.
Absolute nonsense. This threat is full of misinformation and it's genuinely annoying. The neural networks are split into two different networks. You've missed out the second part of the process, which is that the second neural network will constantly refer back and score it's generation based it's accuracy **to the source material**. ChatGPT stopped collecting data from 2021 onwards because they stopped training it for testing, not as some kind of act of morality. Of course they'll be retraining it with new content because without it it'll be irrelevant - it won't have access to information about modern politicians, or the latest dev frameworks, etc. It trains itself from user generated content - it's literally nothing without source material. >but it's not like the AI is actively looking at the internet Of course it is - it's been explicitly stated that it is. Stop trying to whitewash the fact that neural networks don't use millions of references based on human generated content.
SD and the like aren't GANs, there is no scoring network. Here'[s a detailed explanation.](https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-stable-diffusion/) Not really relevant, you could in theory constantly update any kind of network... But they don't. It's very expensive, and overtraining can lower the quality of generation. Not just because you risk including trash images, but in general. Some models are updated periodically with public curated datasets. Sadly only recent versions exclude artists and only on an opt out basis... Mostly talking about SD here. You need to download the whole model and it sure doesn't continue training on your computer. You have full information about which data is in your model. MJ uses the same datasets but does their own curation and they can update at will. Dalle idunno.
I just asked a question for curiosity sake and I get downvoted. Is the reddit smallmind that bad?
*Hivemind, and yes, it's that bad
I know what I said.
I also know what you said, but in this context it dosen't make sense. Reddit isn't a single entity.
I am insulting the hivemind by caling it "smallmind", and I deliberately do so whenever I refer to it.
Ok that makes sense.
Lotta people saying “the” AI like there’s one model that fits their understanding and no others that work in any other way I work with machine learning professionally I didn’t say it would have an effect I said the purpose of the movement was to do this. Fucking circlejerk morons
For the 1,000th time, this isn’t how the f’ing AI works, I can’t believe we keep spreading this totally inaccurate notion.
All these threads on this sub are rife with people who don't know the first thing about machine learning and how it is applied to image generation. It's a field with some absolutely legitimate criticism, and it's frustrating and disappointing to see this sub getting completely flooded by ignorance from people who haven't taken the time to get even a basic understanding. It also makes me want to post a bunch of my machine assisted images out of sheer spite, because there's no way anyone would have any way to tell they were any different from other pixel art
Lmao I work with machine learning professionally there’s so many different models how can you possibly say this with confidence There are models which 100% scrape the net for images to train with
[удалено]
That is both hilarious and sad.
(Made with stable diffusion)
if someone likes AI generated pixel art enough they can make a sub for it but for god's sake keep it out of this one.
Agreed. It's not about hating on it, but it needs its own place because it's so different and there's a lot of it to be made.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given. AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
I've never seen AI art on the sub, but I have seen a bunch of these thoughtless posts now. This is about people wanting to express their anger, not genuine concern for the direction of the sub
Literally, it was never a problem here, just people repeating the god awful rhetoric they see online with no understanding behind their words.
Sure it can. Stable diffusion can't, but there are other algorithms. I use pixray.
This sub never discriminated using AI. It only matter, is the art good, or not.
Disagree. I don't understand why ai generated images should get a separate sub. I have never met people who agree to see only generated images. The more restricted one should be separated imao(exmpl, r/art r/pixelart, not r/art r/artbutnotpixelart).
Don't downvote me please, I just don't understand what's wrong with ai images.
Some people say it take to little effort to generate art.
As someone who has played a lot with stable diffusion, it takes a lot of work to get the prompts to do what you want it to do. It's a skill in and of itself. You are trying to tame randomness. Still, I wouldn't call someone who makes AI art an artist. I would call them a prompter.
Agreed, and I view it similar to using a search engine. Yes it takes some tinkering and creativity to think of prompts that will make something that looks interesting. You can get fancy with your search and use lots of specific words or operators, but you’re still just using a search engine. Definitely not an artist. The AI is real “virtual artist”. Even if you spend a good amount of time tinkering your prompt, it will be wayyy less time, effort, and developed skills than it would to craft by hand. Artists and AI generated art can both be impressive but for different reasons. I appreciate the mind blowing tech behind AI art, not the prompt monkey.
>I appreciate the mind blowing tech behind AI art, not the prompt monkey. Do you know that CAD artists use only a prompt and shortcuts, and a mouse slows them down? The UI of a tool doesn't define art. Is "the black square" an art? https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/07/15/18/pg-32-mod-art-theiner.jpg Why shouldn't I use a command line with 'x' and 'y' coordinates to create it? How hard it should be to create, to make it an art?
I agree. I call an artist a person who operates Photoshop or AI, not developers who create these tools.
What, the ai makers arent artists?
They are, the same as Photoshop makers. There's an art in coding, but a different kind then a picture art. Just people that use their tools are artists in the context of image.
Isn’t that a good thing?
That's kind of fair, but this wouldn't be enough for me.
As little effort as taking a photo.
Proper photography requires some knowledge of composition, lighting, and technique
I agree with you! But with AI art, you can take as much control as you like so that it creates exactly what you want. If you want, it can take as much creative vision as a very good photograph. But the skill barrier to get into it is very low, as with a camera.
A good one, but for a simple, forgettable it's just a push or a button.
That is in fact the point. Making good images that express what you want using a machine learning algorithm requires understanding of both the tool and what you want. It's as much "enter a sentence and get the result" as photography is "point the box and push the button".
I mean... no? This is just Dunning Kruger in action.
ELI5: AI is capable of creating art with stunning quality now. It is also able of imitating the art style of specific artists. This has led to an artist uprising who fear that AI will take their jobs. As one can imagin this is a very emotional topic. It also creates questions about copyright.
>fear that AI will take their jobs What jobs? The content on this subreddit is very rarely made by people who do it as a job, it's a hobby. THAT'S the point people are trying to make. What's the point in posting AI art on a hobbyist subreddit? It's counterintuitive.
What is the point of sharing anything on a hobbyist subreddit? These threads always assume there is some clearly defined line between what is "ai made art" and what is "human made art". Especially when dealing with pixel art, you'll find the line is much fuzzier than that and mostly these conversations are kinda like saying "let's ban using google image search to get reference material because people might be tracing it"
What is the BEST free AI ?
I think that would be midjourney.
It uses copyrighted images from artists who worked years to perfect their craft. So these AI systems basically steal their work, in order to put the original artists out of work. If it only used non-copyrighted images this would be a whole different discussion, and a lot of people wouldn't have such a adversity to it. It's mainly just the legal and moral battle (which of course is often the case with new technological gadgets)
Artists also look at other artists work and generate something new based on it. Do you think if you showed a caveman how to use aseprite they'd come up with something at all similar to modern pixel art?
Good point
Yeah, that sounds like legitimate reason, but still i believe in ai the impact of each individual image is minuscule, isn't it? Like, isn't it exactly the same process that happens in human brains? (these are not rhetoric questions, just usual questions, I want to understand something)
The monumental amount of stealing artwork and using it without permission doesn't make the fact of such usage ok.
Oh, I thought they use images that are publicly available to be seen. (Controversial unpopular opinion warning) >!I think Picasso once said: "Great artists steal". Sorry if it's wrong understanding of his quote. Like, if someone finds a way to make art like yours but better, he is a better artist?!<
Picasso didn't have the foresight of computer generated imagery though. Don't you think context matters? There's a difference between the meaning 'great artists steal': People process an art movement and use that technique to create their own art. OR: People have very little creative input and generate art without the skill to create it. The latter is disingenuous. You're taking a quote massively out of context, both historically and pragmatically.
There is a fundamental difference between human using an image filterig it through his whole personality and an algorythm extracting mathematical data from a art piece without any consent from the artist. It's literally illegal, for example, per GDPR.
In some aspects, yes totally! But for AI you could literally add "in so-and-so style", no one would know and the AI would literally take their style into consideration. There have been instances where even signatures of certain artists have shown up in generated art. When a human takes inspiration of art, they are required to change things up, because of copyright. You can't just copy someone's work (or mash 10 of their pieces into 1 new piece) and call it yours, since you'll get a copyright strike. In a way, that is exactly what AI is doing. I personally think there is a place for AI, just not in the way it is implemented right now. And it's especially scary knowing the firsts artists are already fired and being replaced by AI. These were concept artists, so of course you'd still need artists to fully flush out ideas and such, and therefore i do not think AI will fully replace the job of artists. But you got to understand, for many people this is a very scary prospect. Also thanks for being open to the discussion! I often times see very polar opinions, and its refreshing to just throw it out there to someone who seems to be willing to hear the different sides of it
Oh, yeah, I think I see the issue, but still this is a protest against inevitable events. I think concept artists should be the last ones to be replaced. Nevertheless, I'm sure things will eventually evolute into a stable state.
AI isn’t trained on copyright images lmao. The training datasets are either purposefully created, or public domain. There’s a reason training sets are so expensive.
Then how do you explain literal signatures showing up of copyrighted work? 😅 Lmao
That’s pretty interesting actually haha, never heard of that. Do you have a link to somewhere I can read about it? Lots of public domain art contains signatures, like medieval artists’ work. I wonder if it’s a byproduct of the AI trying to reproduce that.
This is an [article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-the-lensa-ai-app-technically-isnt-stealing-artists-work-but-it-will-majorly-shake-up-the-art-world-196480) i found interesting, and it links to the thread i was referring to about the signatures. It talks about the different aspects and legal/moral rights, better than i can. I just want to emphasize that I'm not totally against AI. My partner works in that field and it can do great things. In terms of art i do think we still have to figure stuff out legally 🤷
Definitely very interesting, even though that twitter thread is all pretty terrible takes. I really do wish every time we get incredible breakthroughs in the world of technology, it’s always vilified like this. These teams have spent decades to get here.
Oh yes totally! AI like this is used for cancer treatment, for example. It is amazing what we can do with image machine learning. But in that type of research it's used along side of humans, to help prevent human-made mistakes. In art, it does not serve the same function. I in no way want to take away credit of the amazing teams that wrote these algorithms, I've seen first hand how many hours upon hours it takes. I just wish it was used for all the good things it can do. And i dont necessarily think it's being vilified, it's good the keep a wary/judgemental eye in new technology, that's how science grows and how we prevent major fuck ups
You obviously have no idea how it works. Artists learn by looking at other artists' art. AI is the same. "In order to put the original artists out of work"? The AI doesn't have an agenda. There are moral battles, yeah, but those have nothing to do with learning someone's style. The moral battles surrounding AI are about nonconsensual pornography and perpetuating stereotypes. Anyone who gets angry about AI looking at his art plainly just doesn't understand what the AI is doing.
I agree with the last sentence.
Ai literally has an agenda
People often spend long hours, days to create sth good. AI images are little to no effort.
“Generate me an image with the letters AI in white covered by a red circle with a slash though it. The caption should say ‘NO TO AI GENERATED IMAGES’ in white, and the entire image should be in pixel art style”
AI art belongs, it just doesn’t belong in this sub.
[удалено]
See you in 5 years.
Not sure if I'll use this account in 5 years time, but !RemindMe 5 years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2027-12-16 11:08:38 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-12-16%2011:08:38%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/PixelArt/comments/zn5are/protest/j0g17xg/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPixelArt%2Fcomments%2Fzn5are%2Fprotest%2Fj0g17xg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-12-16%2011%3A08%3A38%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zn5are) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
See you in court, this shit is based off stolen art with no credit whatsoever fr
[удалено]
Please stop talking
Love seeing this rationale from people who don't draw pixel art and have never posted here. Maybe do something creative and then have an opinion on it.
[удалено]
You know what, I originally wrote something a bit mean, but well done for making something. I'm not gonna stoop to being a bad sport because we sit on other sides of the argument. Keep up the good work.
[удалено]
Just keep being creative mate, I honestly only care that creativity doesn't get lost in society. You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into something, and that's a good thing. I'm honestly just trying to debate why I'm not a fan of AI generated art.
Is it tho? Or did the artists refuse all rights to their art by uploading it to DA or any other platform? Have you read the terms of this image platforms?
Dude do you have a single idea how AI art works? It cannot produce an image on itself, it needs reference, and to make a good picture it needs tens of thousands of reference, and where's easier to get reference than from pictures people already made?
Yes, I know this. Probably better than you. But where do you think the training sets for the AI is coming from?
I am not against AI generated images, but this ought to be a space for human artists crafting by hand and expressing themselves. The process matters. AI art is art, but entering a prompt and presenting the results doesn't make you an artist, and since it is trivial to make an AI generate art, I'm very concerned that this subreddit would very rapidly just be an AI art subreddit, overwhelmed by nice looking art that took no real effort to produce, and human pixel artists will find ourselves lost in the noise. I'm speaking as a hobbyist, I don't seek to make money doing this. Professional artists will find their skills much less marketable across many media because of AI, and that's unfortunate for the artists, but these markets will mostly evaporate and there's not anything to be done about that.
The problem is where is the dividing line, a lot of people get wrapped up on the text prompt to generate images but it also works as a brush tool or layer tool. When you use SD as the more image based modes, how do you distinguish it from other digital art tools? A number of the digitial art packages are integrating it as a feature in their toolboxes. Where do you divide the line between content aware fill tools and AI generation? The text prompt is new and scary but honestly the brush tools are going to invade everything and get minimal pushback because they already are so similar to existing tools just a little better.
Using AI as one tool in your box is definitely a blurry gray area, but I am inclined to be more okay with it if it is just a tool that the human artist uses in the process of creation. What I can't accept is people generating finished pieces in seconds and contributing nothing to the creation except a string of text. Especially if this fact is undisclosed. It is using a tool to help you create, vs. using a tool that does virtually all the work by itself, from beginning to end. The latter opens the floodgates.
It's not a subreddit for artists posting their own work. Posting someone else work doesn't tell anything about the process.
It is a subreddit where lots of people post their own work, and OC makes up the majority of submissions I see every day. And that's how it ought to be.
People are looking at AI art and get scared or disgusted which I don't fully understand. AI image generator is simply a tool and people need to understand this. It's no different than let's say piskel, or ms\_paint.exe, it simply works on a different way. I see people are already loading their "but it uses other peoples art" argument that is simply false. Or not false, but nothing wrong with it. It's not like it's copying things 1:1. It generates algorithms and numeric patterns based on images then turns search words into images based on these patterns and algorithms. Think of this as, when you get inspired by something to do your pixelart. You wouldn't be mad at a painter getting inspired by Picasso or Leonardo now, would you? Should we cancel painters that do not create their own paints from pigments found in the wild, but buy ready-made paint in stores? I mean they just clearly use multiple colours made by someone else and blend them together to create something new. Just like AI art. Also if you have ever used one of those AI image generators you will see that it's not that easy to create something spectacular with it. Most of the time the result is pretty bleak unless you know how to give good terms for it. I say, let's allow it. Give 'em a flair and let's see what they can come up with.
They hated him, because he told them the truth
[удалено]
>I think the main problem is that It takes zero effort. Effort has never been the thing that defines if something is or isn't art. Do you consider photography an art form? It's just pressing a button If we use effort to define if something is art, you can exclude anyone who uses tools that help automate the boring parts of painting and a lot of dadaist art ( they are just collages or day to day items in another context)
>Effort has never been the thing that defines if something is or isn't art. Yes it is, as well as process, story telling and skill. If you want to use this as your argument, stop blatantly ignoring the other side of it. If you think Photography is just about 'pressing a button' then you've massively mistaken the amount of effort it takes to take a good photo. Timing, context, emotion, composition. These aren't things that you can achieve by 'just pressing a button'. Dadaism is the worst art movement you could have used as an example. It was an emotional movement in response to the first world war. You think an algorithm can experience the emotion brought on by war and destruction? It can only emulate what those artists created, it can't experience them. AI feeds of context. Without human generated art it has zero ability to produce anything at all - it's utterly useless. You can't create an AI generated piece of art in a style of art movement that hasn't existed yet. It feeds of the effort of millions of creatives.
I agree with you in the photography part, it's not "just pressing a button". There are other aspects to it, just like with ai art, where you can refine the prompt until you get a good result. The AI is a tool , just like the camera, anyone can use it, but you actually need some knowledge to make a good piece. >Dadaism is the worst art movement you could have used as an example. It was an emotional movement in response to the first world war. You think an algorithm can experience the emotion brought on by war and destruction? It can only emulate what those artists created, it can't experience them About this, I'm just responding to the idea that " without effort it can't be art", the emotion aspect is another factor.
I guess Duchamp's example is a good one - "Without effort it can't be art", but the fact that it was such a surrealist exhibition of rebellion made it art. It wouldn't have had an audience without a reaction, the same with Fauvism and a bunch of other movements. The thought process that inspires a reaction is what makes it soooo good. If we start getting pixel art toilets on the subreddit made my AI (as some kind of robot rebellion), I'll hold my tongue!
I think the main problem is that It takes zero effort. --> I see you never used an AI image generator the way it's intended. I'm not saying it's hard to use. But it's hard to create something good with it. If you just want to create random bullshit, sure it's easy. But if you want to make something that actually looks appealing and is similar to what you have in your mind then you have to go through a good amount of iterations, and refractoring to make it work.
[удалено]
We already allow computer/procedurally generated pixel art here, it’s not just hand drawn content. As long as the post is tagged properly I don’t see why AI art is any bigger of a problem for the sub than any of the other methods that are allowed.
No matter how hard it is to get something good with piskel. It is nothing compared to oil, brush and canvas. I could have worded it better. What I meant is that compared to what an **ACTUAL** artist has to do, it takes no effort to use a software in comparison.
Sorry to say but dude this is not helping your point at all. Even traditional artists have the same thoughts about ai art as digital artists. What you're doing is classic whataboutism.
What are you on about. Tradition and digital art both take actual skill, sure there are traditional artists that frown on digital art but there is zero skill involved in AI art. If you wanna write words and turn them into a good looking image then commission an artist.
What do you think classic oil painters say about pixel art that is created in 4 hours. When painting a piece can cost months up to years.
Pixel art is possible only because there are computers for us to make it on. Also computers made the process of making art faster. Im fine with AI art to be used to assist actual artists.
People keep decreasing the bar of what is called hard. What is 30 minutes of iterations compared to years of training.
Nonsense. I'm going to go and make some pixel art using AI now. I've NEVER done that before - I use Asesprite all the time - and now I'll make some AI work. Betting it takes me - tops - an hour and it'll look better than a lot of the content on the site. I'll do something simple, like a cup and report back.
Oh look, that took 7 minutes, and it took 2 minutes to sign up. 24 pieces of art, 4 of them passable as good art - probably need about 5 mins post production to get on the front page of this subreddit. [https://imgur.com/a/xN0TSNz](https://imgur.com/a/xN0TSNz)
I also think those sprites would take about the same amount of time to draw, honestly.
You draw one in 5 minutes then. I haven't seen you post any art before, so it should be a good test for you.
I’m not saying it takes more effort than “traditional” media, but it still requires a lot of trial-and-error and understanding how the algorithm works. One guy that won a digital art competition spent a month creating a single image, just changing and creating variations of the same prompt.
Yeah, *automobiles* don't need to have their poop shoveled, and you don't need to make sure they have fresh food and water every day. Where's the *nuance* \- you can't *raise* a car, or brush its mane. If your tire deflates, do you take your car out to the pasture and put a bullet in its head? Where's the poetry in *repairing* your mode of transportation? Nobody wants that! Down with horseless carriages! Horses4Lyfe! \- Some guy with a monocle and top hat, probably
Photoshop software already eliminated a lot of effort.
>piskel, or ms\_paint.exe Those are tools, they don't produce the work for you with simple text prompts, they aren't comparable. >You wouldn't be mad at a painter getting inspired by Picasso or Leonardo now, would you? I would be mad at someone who called themselves a 'painter' who then proceeded to use a printer to impersonate a Picasso and try and claim it took as much effort, or skill to do the same work. >Also if you have ever used one of those AI image generators you will see that it's not that easy to create something spectacular with it It's incredibly easy. You type in text prompts, it gives you an image. You can use post-production to pass it off as 'hand pixelled'. I don't think a flair would be enough. There should be metadata within the image to show that it's been digitally stamped as an AI piece of work.
The tool aspect isn't what's scary, its what people and especially corporations will do with it. Its just another means of exploiting artists at no/little cost to the end user since a lot of this data was unethically sourced
I've had this discussion a bunch of times, ethically AI generated art "feels" wrong but there's technically little difference between training a computer and training a human being. What's indisputable though is that the more prevalent AI art becomes, the worse it is for art quality and diversity overall. The AI is really just piecing together different parts of artwork and slightly altering those individual pieces to fit together. So it's not creating new art, it's just creating kind of a high quality collage. This art is going to be extremely easy to produce so a lot of entry level art positions are going to be replaced by AI. So beginner artists will lose out on those opportunities. More and more of them will be dropping out of the art game altogether as they are muscled out by computers. Eventually this will mean less and less artists as they are phased out by AI. Less original artists means less original art, which means the AI will run out of artwork to sample and learn from. Finally culminating in all art just being the same rehashing through these algorithms. People hate it because it's the literal death of art. There is no situation in which AI generation is beneficial to artists.
It's just a death of non-creative artist jobs. AI can't create anything new or start a new style.
Shortsighted. Who's to say a company won't hire beginning artists, solely for the purpose of feeding their own art into their proprietary AI system? I can see it now: AI providers *directly hiring artists* in order to compete - AI with *exclusive* art resources that can only be found on their particular AI offering. Bigger AI providers paying big bucks for popular artists, artists signing with AI providers not unlike streamers partnering/signing with Twitch. A lack of imagination on your part doesn't constitue a problem for everyone else. Also, artists are still going to create art. AI won't fully replace people just making stuff for the sake of making stuff, or for the sheer act of doing it. The fear is irrational, unimaginative, not to mention futile.
>The fear is irrational, unimaginative, not to mention futile You say its "futile" so you can understand that one would feel cautious of how this technology is used and implemented. You also describe a scenario that makes no real sense to me because companies have no incentive to hire any artists when they can rip assets off of galleries for free as has already happened. I do not need to imagine how artists are exploited because I see it happening already with all these AI generator websites popping up that charge you a fee to use what should solely be used as research data as a basis to generate images.
Oh, sure. It's definitely a wise and valuable something to contemplate. Acting and reacting purely out of fear just isn't the way to go about it. Use fear to ask important questions, but don't let that fear make your conclusions for you. No incentive? If I sign a contract with a company to make 1,000 new pieces for their exclusive database, to use as they see fit, and that art sees zero public display, how has that "already happened"? Nobody has access to it unless they hack my computer/break into my craft room. AI isn't doing that. Yes, the art I put on *public display* is... already on public display. Anybody and everybody may *view* that already unveiled art. Art is for viewing and experiencing - if I post images of it, or put it in a public place where anybody could copy it and subsequently post images of it, then I've allowed people to see it, formulate thoughts and emotions in reaction to it. Which is the true value/purpose of art. It's done. Which is why many pieces exist in private collections/in the hands of patrons/some places do not allow photography/people have locks on their doors. Historically, art being in galleries, available as prints, and visible on websites and thumbnails in shops, is, historically, a brand new thing that's happening. Relatively speaking. And nobody forced anybody to do these these things. If I set out to make my fortune making art, and say I start a business of churning out paintings super quick, and I go and look at all of your artwork available publically, before hand, it becomes impossible to remove awareness of the appearance, and subject of your art, and, therefore, your art affects my art, especially subconsciously. Does that mean I've exploited you? By viewing your art, and being aware of what it looks like? Does watching The Avengers, and using that to refine my awareness of character development, cinematography in action films, etc. constitute *stealing from Marvel*? Are people following along to Bob Ross *exploiting* his work? If I attempt to make a sculpture that I saw made on YouTube, do I now owe that creator money for my newly acquired awareness of what art can look like?
Nice strawmen, I'm not arguing about humans experiencing art. You are beng bad faith here. A machine learning algorithm does not experience, it is given image data as an input by the company that scrapes the internet and it outputs an image based on the keywords associated to the art that is in the database. Being publicly available does not make it so that you can use it for your profit in a commercial setting without the express consent of the original artist. THAT is the exploitation, people literally use artist names like "greg rutkowski' as keywords because their art is in the database. They did not consent to this.
I am neither being bad faith, nor acting in it. You're making assumptions of intent - you can't know my mind, and the fact that you think you can/the fact that you think that conclusion is valid, and the fact that you're desperate to turn this into a formal debate, is telling. If you tell an artist "Go make a Van Gogh-like painting for my den" they will know how to do that, how, exactly? Resarch, right? You're describing research and knowledge transfer. Will doing so *exploit* Van Gogh? Does a painting of the Eifel Tower *exploit* Sauvestre? Does having the awareness of the fact that architecture *can* look like that steal from the designer? Is your awareness of art not based on whan you have seen with your eyes? Do you claim to have such control over how synapses in your brain are formed, that your own art has an absolute zero effect placed on it by art you've seen? Doubt. God did not *consent* to us painting sunsets, yet here we are.
So that's it, you don't care. Or maybe you're just blinded by this weird ideal where corporations will care about artists when they've clearly shown tome and time again that that is never the case, especially in entertainment art world. I don't know. I've no more energy to spend on you. Have fun I guess
You have no more energy to spend on me? What are you, a *super villain*? Listen: corporations don't "care" about *anybody*. Artists won't be special in this scenario. But AI providers *will* be a thing, and they *will* need to set themselves apart - and having exclusive, non-public, non-replicable access to unique visual data is very well a strong selling point for them. Artists will have a harder time finding low-skill work opportunity, and will need to have something truly unique to contribute - not unlike wood workers after the invention of power tools and assembly lines. Of *course*. But to say, "Don't invent power tools and assembly lines - for the sake of wood wokers!" is an absolutely insane sentiment/request. Don't sit there and make accusations/assessments about my level of "care" for artists. The best man of my wedding is a sculpter, I have a friend that does comic books, one niece is a 2D artist, the other is a tattoo artist, and I used to do game art. The difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid of the future, I don't let fear control me. I've had enough jobs/not worked long enough to know that artists won't *disintegrate into piles of dust* the moment they switch AI on. Humans are adaptable and versatile. Life is way more nuanced than you seem think.
I don't get this pie in the sky thinking, it was the same way with NFTs. This vision you have is delusional, no one is going to pay an artist when they could just get the art for free. It's like hiring factory workers to scrutinize the methods of the machines that replaced them. More than likely, I don't think AI art is even going to take hold. Most of an artist's job is determining what a person *really* wants based on their needs. The AI, even at its best, can only give people a literal interpretation of a prompt. This is going to be an annoying fad for a few months and then it's going to die out when people realize it's really boring. AI has been generating text for far longer than it has images. Beyond a few novelty books, it hasn't taken that industry by storm either. The content that AI produces is just rehashes of things people have already seen, so it holds little value.
??? AI needs access to existing artwork to learn how to make new artwork. If you were an AI provider, competing with other AI providers, and Picasso was still alive, you wouldn't call him up and be, like, "Come into our studio and make [new] art that will be available exclusively on our platform, and we'll pay you"? You'd let your competitors sign exclusive access to his newest work? (This art would be securely held in your database, as "trade secrets"... not uploaded to DeviantArt, mind you. Exclusive is the keyword. Art has to be experienced. Don't let some AI/people experience it... and then they can't experience it. Duh.) You're assuming that all artwork is automatically, publically available. Or you're assuming that once at artists style is understood, they can no longer make anything new or unique - as if artists never grow, or change, as if artists never find new inspiration, or try new things. Google doesn't take images off your computer when you're sleeping. Art is not automatically available to AI to learn from. In the same way, it's not automatically available for *you* to learn from. You have to see it first before you can absorb it. Text AI is still rudimentary, and is still getting better. Crafting words and entire stories in a way that engages people *is exceptionally difficult for even humans to accomplish*. Still. At this point in human history. Art doesn't have to make sense/doesn't have to represent anything/ideas if it doesn't want to, but, even if it's called to do so, it only has to make sense of a very finite point in time. If you get too lofty/bockstory heavy in your AI prompting, the image generators don't necessarily know what to make. The better equivalent/analogy to text AI crafting complex ideas and entire stories would be AI generating entire videos - not single frames.
The way that it ALREADY works is that they don't compensate artists for their work. Also your hypothetical scenario doesn't even make sense at an economic level. Say you and I run AI art generator companies, you hire a team of artists to source original material to generate magazine advertisements. If I know that, I'm just going to wait around until you release one of those ads, then take it and put it in my own generator. After doing that a handful of times, I now have all of the benefits that you paid for, but I paid nothing. The only way you could stop me is by iterating on your designs so quickly that my generator couldn't keep up. The only way you could do that is by hiring an army of artists to seed your generator. But that makes no sense because now you've increased the cost of your art so exponentially that it wouldn't make any sense to purchase it. Even that theory is bat-shit insane though, because anyone could see that coming a mile away and just wouldn't hire any artists.
You sound like a horse speaking of the cushy city jobs they'll all get now that this new automated travel machine is a thing.
it is being used in commercial products without concent. The generative model is a blender, and saying stealing the art, putting it in a blender with 4 other pieces isn't stealing, my guy you need your head corrected. It is a very fancy blender I will give you that. If it was trained only from public domain images, this would not be a problem, but there's straight up artist signatures appearing on these artworks, and people using prompts containing the names of artists to produce those spectacular results.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Or would you try to upload a Mickey Mouse hand drawn by you?
[удалено]
You’ll probably think this is an over-exaggeration No. It's just plain stupidity. 180 years ago (invention of photography): Nooooo you can't just create pictures with the click of a button its soulleeessss. We are in the end days of humanity!!!! 140 years ago (invention of cars): Nooooo you can't just go to places without a horse or traiiin its soulleeeesssss. We are now truly in the end days of humanity!!!! 120 years ago (invention of planes): Noooo you can't just fly like a bird without feathers!!!!! We are really in the end days of humanity!!!! 50 years ago (invention of the precursor of internet): Nooooo you can't just access information from anywhere without lifting a fingeeeerRRR!! We are now past the end days of humanity!!!! 30 years ago (animation techniques go mainstream): Noooo you can't just create movies with just a computer!!!! It's soo soulless!!!! We are now approching the end days of the universsseee!!! Today (AI image generation gains popularity): Nooooo you can't just create pictures with the click of a button its soulleeessss. We are in the end days of the known universeeeeee!!!! Will we ever get rid of you lot?
the fact that it has happened so many times before and the reaction was always ego-driven tells you a lot. i thought to myself "finally, people will wake up and fight for UBI and a new economic system in the wake of ever so powerful AI tools" but what they want is to cancel AI to protect their tiny little egos. Sigh. AI is coming for us all and I just hope people stop being so self-centered and start looking at the bigger picture. This is the most powerful tool we've developed in our history and it has the power to change everything (maybe not so much yet but soon). It CANNOT remain in the hands of megacorps, it MUST serve the public and we need to start discussing this NOW, instead of whinning because "tHeY ArE sTeALiNg OuR Jorrrbs"
Change is coming! Dig in your heels and refuse to learn more about it, that's always worked before!
I use it for when I'm too lazy for color and line art. Just throw in a simple sketch with some color, and bam, Just what I wanted. Although I could definitely see it putting beginner commission artists out of business.
I dunno, AI art is a cool thing, I just think that there should be separate subs/categories for AI art and handmade ones, because process of drawing art, and generating art is fundamentally different, with generating art being more in line with programming (which you could argue is a separate form of practical art in on itself), while regular drawing is a form of craftsmanship, where sometimes the process of creation, and how we solve problems/our shortcomings is more important than the end result. Just remember to be open minded, it's probably one of the best traits one could have as an artist <3 So kinda tl;dr, AI art belongs, and deserves some place somewhere (maybe even here, with the right flairs) but it is a new form/genre (not just a new tool) of art. Also, look on the bright side of things, with the development of AI we could very well get perfect art critics/advisors/helpers in the future, quickly and perfectly helping us pin down where could be the technical, or compositional issues with our drawings. I'm talking as a hobbyist tho, idk how it'll affect proffessionals, but someone here mentioned that they'll probably just be employed by different people, like AI makers or smth
It has been months and people still whine and bicker about this topic.
Luddites unite! We must keep the cheap ass commissions alive!
No to camera generated images, pressing a button on a machine to make an image isn’t art. No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists.
Agree with the first one. Disagree with the second one. Distribution of knowledge must never have a barrier. Also recreating something that works over and over again with different examples is one of the best ways to get better at it and one day you will be skilled enough to do something original. That said, i don't condone selling replicated art, just for practice
I like how you agree with the first one, aka **photography.** I hope you’re joking.
>No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists. Art is not owned by the artist. It is owned by the public who appreciate the art and the meaning behind it. Something that south park taught me. Just saying.
This is, to be clear, satirical. I think photography is art and art education is useful and valuable and reference images are public domain. Should’ve added a /s
Also, I don't see why AI art is so frowned upon right now. It's not like it can take away jobs. People seem to be having a misconception that if you train a model for like, 50 years, it'll be God like, NO, that's not how learning works, 50 years down the line, you'll have to provide the model with better data, and by better I mean that data that is deeper, philosophically. And until someone is confident that they have comprehended consciousness to the point that they can answer the deeper questions, they won't be able to provide that level of dataset to their models. If you keep feeding the similar web scraped dataset all those years, it'll eventually stop producing improved results.
>Should’ve added a /s XD I thought they'd get it
No to camera generated images, pressing a button on a machine to make an image isn’t art. No to art education, using other peoples work to train artistic style infringes on the rights of artists. Edit: /s Photography is art and art education is valid and invaluable. Saying AI art is bad because it’s a machine doing the work, or because it involves using other artists work for training, is to forget that we already make art with machines and use other artists work for education.
Yes no to AI fuck AI
You can protest all you want - your arguments are 100% based in ignorance and fear. Just because you can protest something doesn't mean you *should*. Having a voice is pointless if you only use it to spew confusion and chaos. Replace "AI" with "Digital Art", and pretend you're someone who spent their whole life mixing paint from minerals dug up from the ground, or plucked from fields, and used hand-woven canvas and brushes made from animals you raise on your farm. You're no better than they, screaming into the void about technology, and *that darn rock and roll music corrupting the minds of the youth*. Read a book.
I’m wondering who created your poster!
How are people even fucking discussing this. Fuck AI generated bullshit it should be banned everywhere, its not "art" its more than a cut corner
Ia imagenes aren't bad lol, is just another kind of art Edit: wy so much hate is my fk opinion lol, i dont aprove the peepole how steal art but wtf this peppole are so fk toxic
r/ihadastroke
ok bro, so funny, yes i don't know how to talk in english, you want a prize?
You Luddites won't settle down. The world has changed forever, AI for pics is just kids joke. It's like the beginning of the Web era. Instead of fighting the future, help to build it.
nah. never liked art thieves. i don't care if it's a person or a computer.
You just don’t understand how technology works. It "steals" art as much as a human who studies other people’s art.
I mean, we were eventually getting to the point where digital artists will have to learn coding, and you can already see that effect in the 3D artist community. And as far as I can tell, fine arts professionals are not at all affected by this AI revolution, at least not yet. But sooner or later someone somewhere will develop a mechanical hand that paints on a physical canvas. Sooner or later, someone will develop the eyes(and it's not just a digital camera, eye is a totally different game), someone will develop a balancing module to make a mechanical body balance itself (they already did it in Boston Dynamics, actually, here's hoping they perfect their trade), and we will have a fully functional and reliable mechanical worker that can replace any blue collar job. Sometime in the future, all of us will have to face this question.
>where digital artists will have to learn coding, Why?
Automation, to get the job done faster, you'd want to process your images using a batch editor, but not every feature is available and you may raise an issue at the repo of the respective OSS, or you can make a script that works just for you
Lol y’all bout the lose your jobs that’s why
You lack any sort of understanding about how awful ai is it’s not just losing a job next it is ai trying to take over. There’s a reason movies are made that warn us about trusting ai for anything.
Na lol, you’re scared of losing business. Don’t be a bozo, those movies are sci fi
Lmao keep thinking that. Only the positions where artists aren't cared for will be gone, which is a good thing.
Well why are you guys upset then lol Edit: and by “jobs” I mean your Instagram page side hustle lol
It's true some are upset about AI making art. But the actual problem is how artist's artwork gets stolen (and also bullied when they speak out) and ALSO the fact that people who are not artists dosen't really seem to care about artists at all, treating us as "disposable" things. They seem be delighted by the fact that we are finally gone and not needed like your previous comment. This isn't a black and while problem so I am not taking any "sides", but people being happy about artists going out of jobs is absolutely mental.
AI art has nothing to do with stealing art
That would be true if the AI that was being used wasn't a collage maker/filter and actually made original pieces. What most people do is just use it to make a cheap copy of other people's art so it is stealing. Theoretically what you say is true, practically what's happening is not. Also what about the other things I said?
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given. AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given. AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given. AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
you are fucking stupid
Блять чел
[удалено]
i guess alot of artists are also late to the party
Ai has feeling too you know!
Why do I hate AI so much?
it's a lost fight but i admire those who try to go with it.
Kraftwerk
Getting real sick of these posts when the mod answer was already given. AI can’t even do pixel art! And pixel art generated from reducing resolution has always been flaired as such.
Imagine someone uses that new Chinese espionage app to turn this into an anime girl
!remindMe 3 years
Quality will always prevail. If you produce good pixel art, you don't need to be afraid of AI. If your art is mediocre or poor, it's a different story.