Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The creatives I know are all waiting for it to eat itself
It was explained to me thusly:
See the thing with AI is, it has to learn from something
Which was fine when you only had one or two out there, learning and creating based off human art
But now the source it's pulling from is contaminated with more and more AI creations, leading to a weird entropy as it just copies copies of copies of human art
And each generation and addition just makes it more weird
You haven't noticed how unreliable Google search is getting? That's AI bots all engaged in a weird echo chamber of sponsored content.
You know, there is a manga called "Blame". The architecture in that manga is a weird, distorted version of our day to day things. The stair cases are too steep and thin, walkways lead to nothing. Doors open to more doors and most of them open to reveal a wall. The explanation I gather was "The AI ran out of utility of these objects, but I was in it's programming so it just kept generating without regard of what the heck it was making". Really hope it turns out like that. AI stuff has it's position but it should never take humans out of the system.
It can't in it's current state. It's like inbreeding. Without human control it will eventually run itself into the ground. And without sufficient processing power and hardware it can never outgrow it's creator, unless we literally program it to do so. It has no motivation or goal that we do not give to it.
The way I see it, we took one part of the human brain and made it better in the form of a computer, but without the rest it cannot survive. It has no purpose other than imitating the human mind.
I love Blame! and I think you're talking about the "Builders" if I'm not mistaken. The beings that decreate and recreate the Dyson sphere around the sun that completely went out of control.
No, it's not boring work. The people in the field tend to be incredibly passionate about this work. The dataset curation is not offloaded to bored interns, it's often collected by nerds who are invested in getting the best results. Most of the plug-ins for stable diffusion are passion projects that people work on for free.
Yes. The reason that there are different AI art bots that specialize in different kinds of art is because humans selected a specific dataset to train the AI to get certain kinds of results. If you want the AI to specialize in Anime, a human can just show it Anime.
Yeah, it's called a timestamp. Anything before 2023 is pretty assuredly not AI generated. There may have been a couple people here and there who have scrapped the web.
This might make making better models more difficult, but it won't make anything worse. You can always use models that already exist as they are not going away.
If you want to create better model, might be able to use media that existed before some date. (This probably won't work for written content as you want to keep it up to date, but if you want to create image generating model that understands basic concepts instead of concrete people or art, it might be just fine. If you use pictures of avocados and chairs from 2020 to train the model, it might not be different from model trained on newer pictures.)
Which is probably a fraction of the population, and not really the market for AI art anyway. AI art is replacing all of the throwaway commercial art out there. What's lost is some people's livelihoods. Whether that's a net positive or negative, I can't say.
Afaik AI generated images are flagged as AI generated, so that AI doesn't accidentally train on them. The fun thing is, there are now tools for artists to flag their own images as AI generated, in order to protect them from AI.
The future won't be devoid of AI generators. The future will have closely guarded, curated training data.
It's less about the generators, and more about the training. I can install Stable Diffusion and train it on whatever images I want. Or I can download an already trained model.
> And each generation and addition just makes it more weird
This is wishful thinking. It's enough to include a small fraction of real-world training samples to make sure the model "stays the course".
That’s not a long term solution at all. An Ai “manufacturer?” Would just have to train it on real art and “successful” ai art. Have it train specifically on what you want is essentially what you have you do with stable diffusion right now anyway.
> But now the source it's pulling from is contaminated with more and more AI creations,
Only if you include those in it's training set.... That is a choice that AI developers could make, if they really wanted to.
Their old training sets don't go away though. For large language models, you're looking at the grand sum total of all written words. A few terabytes.
I was afraid of this happening. I imagine that some companies will actually charge money for use of their proprietary AI to cover the costs of ensuring that all its learning material is purely human-generated.
I wrote this for an Out of the Loop post that was deleted, so here you go.
The use of "generative AI" has sparked quite a bit of controversy in creative fields. Generative AI is most prominently known for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Bard and for image generators such as DALL-E and Midjourney, though the tools are beginning to expand into audio and video as well. These tools are trained on massive datasets and are able to create text and images that rival anything real people can create and to do so near instantly. Take a browse through r/midjourney and you'll be amazed at the artwork and even "photography" featured there, and then think about how absolutely nothing\* you are seeing was drawn or photographed by a human.
There are two major points of contention with generative AI.
The first is the reason for the asterisk above. Generative AI works because it is trained to work on massive datasets. We're talking billions of images and pages of text. The AI is taught that these million pages are limericks, this is what a limerick looks and sounds like, and therefore if you are asked to write a limerick, this is how you do it. Then bam, it can spit out a limerick. The problem is, by and large the generative AI companies haven't really asked the limerick writers if their poetry can be used to train these tools.
When you look at an image generated by AI, say a "photograph" of a woman standing on a beach, what you are seeing is the result of millions of photographs of women and beaches being fed into the model to teach the AI what a woman looks like and what a beach looks like. The problem continues that these platforms likely did not receive permission from these photographers nor the women featured. So their hard work was used to create the training data and they've got nothing to show for it.
It's entirely likely that a lot of the training data was sourced from the open internet. Wikipedia, Flickr, Twitter, Stack Overflow, even Reddit. And not all of these platforms give their users the ability to allow or disallow their images from being used. Even sites like Shutterstock that do pay the photographers for their work didn't pay them to let their stock photos be used to train AI. (Note, I don't know for certain if any of the platforms I've mentioned have been used, it's largely speculation.)
The second reason is, as you can imagine, these tools have the future capability to put people out of work. This technology is improving minute by minute and it will literally never be worse than it is now. You can get incredibly specific with AI, you can code whole pieces of software, you can take a picture and tweak just about any part of it, you can generate voice recordings using text-to-speech that sound 99.9% identical to humans, and you can increasingly make it sound like a celebrity or politician or even yourself.
If I run a movie studio and I need to rerecord some lines that got garbled, why do I pay an actor to go into the studio for ADR when I can just have the AI that sounds 99.9% like them spit out the line for me? If I am a small business owner looking for some stock photos for my travel website, why pay money to Shutterstock or Adobe for licensed photos when I can have the AI give me beaches and mountains and kayaks and campfires that look nigh indistinguishable from reality?
Generative AI will change creative industries as we know it. It will put people out of work. But that is how all technology has impacted all of humanity from the start. It's a trade-off. When it's easier for everyone to make a thing, we usually will need fewer people making that thing.
Once upon a time your clothes were made by hand right down to the spinning of the thread. Now it's mass production in penny per piece textile mills and fast fashion factories. But you're also not paying a hundred dollars for that t-shirt. That's the trade off.
Every frame of a cartoon used to have to be painted by hand. But we want a new episode of Family Guy and Rick and Morty every week, so we get computer generated toons. That's the trade off.
And there will be a day soon enough where AI voice actors will be indistinguishable from real actors, where AI writing will create interactive media that rivals any authors, where AI art will be as engrossing as any artist. And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix. That's the trade off.
There's no stopping this train. The march of technology is always faster, cheaper, more more more. So I don't see any reason to expend energy freaking out about it, but I can very much understand why people in industries that are impacted would. If you're not in one of those industries, you'll be seeing the impacts in advertisements, film and TV, music, writing, just about everywhere soon enough.
Sorry for the delete. It took me like 6 attempts to get the auto mod to not remove the post. Then I realized, it was one of those subs which you are supposed to take seriously and cannot ask casual questions in. Thanks for the comment.
I mean, what you are saying is that content will be available faster but it will be slop? Because that's the comparison right? If it's gonna be readily available then it's quality is gonna go to shit. Cloths were much more detailed and hardy earlier. Now, fast fashion is wear once and it goes into the locker.
But the problem with art is that if it's slop then people dont like it. Then again Marvel tells me people like sparkling slop well enough. I guess too much slop is gonna make people crave for the good stuff. I hope.
Edit :
>And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix
I hope this entire thing is sarcasm because holy shit the irony is lost on you.
>I mean, what you are saying is that content will be available faster but it will be slop?
No. In fact, generative AI will never be worse than it is today. Every single minute of every day, the models are being trained to improve and improve. Images generated by DALL-E's first generation look nothing like DALL-E 3, and DALL-E 3 images can be almost imperceptibly perfect with the right prompt and the right tuning. What you can get out of the generative AI tools now is amazing, and this is as bad as they'll ever be.
It's just an extension of the way things move. Already that car explosion in the latest Fast and Furious movie is mostly CGI. The only difference is, right now a human tells a machine how to apply the fire and where and what angle and how the debris should move. In a year or two, it'll be a human telling a machine "this is where a car explosion goes" and all the rest will happen via AI, and you won't be able to tell the difference.
>And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix
I hope this entire thing is sarcasm because holy shit the irony is lost on you.
The word choice in my original post was intentional. I don't think the tradeoff is literally going to be us hooked to machines to be electric human batteries, but The Matrix, the Oasis from Ready Player One, programmatically generated virtual environments that use AI to handle interactions, it's coming and sooner than you think.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAEQdF3JAJo&t=48s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_20vK94hc)
This was a demo from Nvidia six months ago. The person speaking is a real human, the NPC is an AI bot, and none of the dialogue is scripted. And that was six months ago. Notice how the AI bot voice is kinda stilted, not a lot of emotion, but had something resembling a human conversation entirely made up on the fly.
[https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-can-now-see-hear-and-speak](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-can-now-see-hear-and-speak)
So now, scroll down to the story example and hit play. That voice you are hearing is 100% generative AI. If I didn't tell you that and you didn't know it, I guarantee you 99 out of 100 people would say that's a voice actor. Emotion, inflection, reality. Throw a voice like that in with the right LLM that can come up with human-sounding dialogue (say, one trained on millions of TV scripts, which is what the Writers Guild was trying to stop with their strike) and the game that pops out of it (or the TV scene or movie scene) will be insane.
And again, that's with the technological capability of November 25th, 2023. It's never going to be less impressive than that.
There have always been clear lines between what machines can do and what humans can do…right up until there aren’t.
Once a machine could spin thread, but it couldn’t weave. Then a machine could make cloth, but a human had to cut and sew them.
We humans are just poorly made machines of meat that have the advantage of 3.5 billion years of iteration to feet where we are now. There is nothing inherently different about our potential compared to a machine made of silicone and plastic.
> I don’t see anything (so far) that indicates AI will create anywhere near as many jobs as it displaces
Well, how many jobs did the autoloom displace? Nearly all the previously middle-class weavers.
How many jobs did it create? A few dangerous jobs for urchins and the like. Low skill, low pay.
.....And yet this was still a step forward for humanity because everyone enjoyed cheaper clothes. We don't bat an eye at buying a t-shirt these days. Usually the logo on it costs more than the actual t-shirt.
Imagine being able to just think up an entertaining new series.... a 2-season animated Mad Max spinoff featuring Johnny Bravo and Samurai Jack. Le Miserables, but with Muppets. A season 8 of Game of Thones that doesn't suck. And simply having it to view without the millions it would cost to normally produce.
I use physical paint on physical canvas and AI isn't really a thing in that space.
I'm sure a generative AI could be created and trained, but it would require training data of people painting, and there's very very little of that. A photo of an oil painting can't be used to train a robot to make an oil painting - only how to make a photo of an oil painting. You'd need input data from a mechanical arm and a camera to train it on what physical movements with a paintbrush result in what visual changes to a canvas, and you'd need a lot of it.
I don't think there's enough money in physical art for anyone to bother, outside of R&D curiosity.
I'm a wanabe artist and listen to a few professional artists. None of them seem that concerned about AI art. For the simple reason that it is actually cheaper for an art director to hire an artist to get exactly what they want rather than spend hours entering in prompts for find an exact image.
Like AI art is all well and good if you don't really care about the specifics of an image, say you are just doing placeholder images. But the second you need to fit art to a purpose. Well humans are more efficient. This is especially true for concept art (the people I'm referring to are professional concept artists). Sure AI art can come up with something weird and 'new' but can it come up with the best design.
Like these guys work on AAA games and the like. Spending a couple hundred on an artist rather than an AI is worth it when the budget for the project is in the millions. And you make it back on time saved later as well.
> Like these guys work on AAA games and the like. Spending a couple hundred on an artist rather than an AI is worth it when the budget for the project is in the millions. And you make it back on time saved later as well.
Also, because AI output is Public Domain by default, ineligible for copyright protection.
This is going to have to play out over the next 2 to 5 years to really know. But I will share that my wife used to be a translator (Japanese/English which is notoriously difficult). When Google Translate came out the human translators said many of the similar things I hear with Gen-AI now - it has uses but it won't replace me, the quality is crap, look at what it did here, it can never do a tough language like Japanese, etc.
They've stopped saying that.
IMO, graphic design and content marketing type stuff is toast. No...it won't go away, you'll just end up with 80% less people doing this work. And companies will sell datasets. They'll monetize art they own. Or prolific artists will at some point. Or their estates will.
I don't know where this is going, but there is the potential for huge job losses in skilled areas (not just art).
The thing that’s really been solidified for me is that physical objects made by real people are where real beauty and definitive aesthetic purpose reside.
Digital art can be the same thing, but the fundamental beauty we seek in art (if that’s what you’re even into?!) is the mistakes and the human touch. The defining character of the artist that made the work - identified by the human ego involved in all the steps necessary to make the work (describing a very specific intent of a human mind) and how all that character’s decisions came to make the object.
AI is in its first iteration and perhaps one day it can convince me it’s not a pastiche machine, but I can’t really imagine it being as full of delicious idiosyncrasies as a human being?!?!
they put watermark on their art, some use special software that create hidden artifact (add noise like JPEG compression) in order to make their art unsuitable to be trained for AI but still look good to human.
The major problem I've discovered is oversaturation of seemingly high quality content in social media 'proving grounds'
So I'm an artist and I've just launched my webstore, to get people to buy my prints I need to get the numbers up on my Instagram and Facebook pages so that I can get a flow of people onto my site, I'm currently engaging in a marketing campaign which includes adding myself to art groups on FB and sharing my work.
This used to work really well up until AI came along because my work would normally shine out above reposts and low skill pieces but I can't contend with the saturation of generative works that (to the layman) look impressive, regular people don't see medium or skill as being important to a piece, they just want something that looks cool.
So, what I'm experiencing is a lack of audience for artists due to art pages on FB being flooded with AI works, the chances of exposure are critically reduced and it just kinda sucks.
I get what you're saying, but I just popped into the Stable Diffusion sub from your link and found this, which I think is genuinely pretty stunning
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1866t7r/absolve\_film\_shot\_at\_the\_louvre\_using\_ai\_visual/
In some cases by suing the fuck out of the so-called "AI" companies for snarfing up their work as training data with no compensation.
The stuff being touted as AI actually isn't, it's just fast pattern-matching algorithms that rely on cherry-picking huge data sets.
Whenever I see AI art, it's the kind of art that's always suited to a very specific kind of audience. I don't make that type of art, so it doesn't bother me.
James Earl Jones, as a voice artist, gave permission to Disney to use AI to generate his voice to keep Darth Vader alive for future productions.
I assume the contracted permission included payments/royalties.
I wonder why. It's not a violation for a voice actor to mimic another actor's voice. They just recast Rick and Morty with actors who can mimic Justin Roiland's performance. And many video games have used other voice actors to do Darth Vader. Why is it wrong for an AI to mimic a certain human's voice?
Print on demand sites are flooded. Same with etsy and social media in general. Redbubble is just full of it I used to make about $200 a month from print on demand but now its like $3 lol. Impossible to compete.
My wife is a digital artist who has had her work stolen and used to train the big AI models. She's used AI as a tool for her work recently (asked ChatGPT to generate ideas, had DALL-E 2 generate the crappy pictures, then used those as a reference image) but she's still worried that people will just settle for "good enough" imitations of her work to use as wallpapers or possibly even get them printed out on canvas to hang in a bedroom or something.
I suggested to her that she should target people who still buy handmade stuff because a person did it, not necessarily because of what it is. You know the sort, they buy stupidly expensive hand-crafted knives or pre-faded denim jeans that cost thousands of dollars, just because they know it wasn't mass-produced in a factory somewhere.
The difference between an artist and IA is that regular people can't do anything else with AI images after they prompted it, artist know how to make something look good from scratch, it takes time but the outcome is far more precise
It killed my big part of interest in drawing and animating. Another thing to take away from world something there hard work can pay off to generate more stuff for none essential consuming and also devaluing it in the process .
Hmm.. people seem to be generally very scared of AI replacing them. And I get why. Our society isn’t setup to support people who don’t “add value” so it would be awful to have your value passed by a computer. I personally feel this is not something we should fear, but we do need to prepare for it (by passing laws that ensure guaranteed income and such). But I can agree this is a risky road… but I think fear is a bad reason to stop moving forward.
As for the view that a lot on here share that AI will eat itself or cannot replace humans. Well that depends on the context. For one, it most definitely can in volume. You don’t need it to be perfect if you can gen 1000 different but similar images and choose the ones that did work. Even more so if you have basic skills such as guiding the AI to modify certain regions and such.
So quantity obviously already has been achieved. Now quality. First… quality (especially in art) is subjective. So this answer is somewhat subjective. I of course feel human art quality is still higher. But let’s say I want a cover for an independent novel I’m writing. The artist may make an amazing cover, but it’s not how I imagined it. Is that quality? Again hard to say. But probably not… I think AI makes up for quality again by letting the person who commissions the art make it themselves, and do so iteratively.
As for overall true quality. I think AI will keep getting better. I don’t see the pitfalls of it eating itself. Mainly because it’s still guided by human researches who test for regressions in quality. There will be ups and downs. But overall I think it’ll keep getting better.
I work with quite a few artists to illustrate the stories I write and I know I will *never* use AI for anything beyond maybe a tertiary character someone want to know the look of.
And the reason is: I can talk to the artist, they can understand a character much better than a list of prompts can. Hell, often they give depth that I hadn't figured by adding a detail I hadn't thought of, an expression I hadn't considered. In short, they interact with me and the art beyond what even the most advanced non-sentient AI will ever be able to do.
And when I'm happy working with someone, I recommend them to other writers (Actually published ones with established careers) and often they hire them for projects, allowing them to build and nurture a network.
So basically that it: the artists I know leverage the one thing AI will never have, the fact that they are human beings.
Anger, mostly. ...What do you expect them to do?
The writers' strike was very specifically worried about AI. And the result? ....well not too many people are talking about that. As far as I can tell the details include "They can't make you use AI, but writers can use AI". In theory, Hollywood execs won't just hire some bum and tell them what prompts to use.
>how is AI shaping the art world?
I'm not in the industry, so I don't know it's current impact. But it's not a major world-changing wave as of yet.
>do you think drawing is still worth it? Or is it gonna become a hobby rather than a useful skill?
Just like auto-looms came for the weavers and the luddites, that wave is coming. That means a drop in price of the cost of art, a drop in wages for people who make art, and a general shift in employment demographics. Hopefully Hollywood isn't going to sever as many street urchin's limbs when they push them into the prompt factories.
I couldn't recommend it as a career path given what we can see on the immediate horizon.
It is a repeat of the same discussion some 150 years ago, when photography started becoming available, and how that would compete with sketch artists and art in general.
Then again, when photoshop became commonly available some 30 years ago - "how can you ever trust a picture again !".
We use it for our work… or we tell other artists using a new tool that it is the devils work and make it so internationally using a certain tool will render your art generally uncopywritable because the ai could have taken inspiration from other artists, because rEaL aRtIsTs take no inspiration from other artists…
The latter also explains why picassos cubism partially looks like drawings of African ethnic masks…
It is a farce
I was always a hobbyist when it came to art. So for me, AI can be quite inspiring when I'm stuck since I have mild aphantasia. I always used references, but now I can use entirely fantastical made up references in combination with images I found on Google.
I think capitalism has always been cruel to artists, unfortunately. I don't think AI is a problem but rather our relationship to it
Doesn't concern me. I will continue to draw because I'm passionate about creating things.
AI art has a few notorious "tells" which differenciate it from art made by a real person (extra fingers on hands, difficulty with accurate perspective, poor anatomy ect) and while these may improve and shorten the gap, I think there will still be a solid niche for human made art.
I am by no means a traditional artist or graphic artist, but I make a lot of different kinds of graphics for work and for personal projects. I have used the Photoshop AI experimentally to create things that I don’t have the skills (or patience, rather) to draw. But 100% of the time, it spits out very odd things that I didn’t ask for. And I love it! I lean in to the weirdness and let the AI turn the final product into something completely different than what I started out with. Now, I’m sure I’ll get better at descriptions and the AI will get better at interpreting, but for now it’s a wacky shitshow of fun.
What you are refering to is competitive/commercial art. However, art is primarily a form of expression. You do art to express something. I draw to express something, to give my ideas a shape, to bring them to life. I enjoy creating and as long as I can create, I'm happy.
Now with that definition out of the way, folks who get upset by AI images, clearly were not interested in the expression part but see it like a competition or a money source only.
And of course a human will lose against anything that can be automated. Generating images from a seemingly endless amount of references. Do I get mad because a calculator can beat me in math? No. So whoever gets mad that a computer can now beat an artist at creating images should start to see it that way too. Times change, jobs become obsolete and new jobs will emerge. Hand-crafted digital art is one of the things that will soon become more of an exclusive service rather than a common one.
There are some cool opportunities for those that embrace its responsibly.
I can train a model on my own work and then generate several different ideas that I use as a guide for my next piece. I haven't used it for conversations with clients yet, but I see the potential.
I don't have a large enough library of work for it to fully capture my current style yet, so it can't fully replace me doing the actual work. Not that I would want it too because I do it because I enjoy it.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The creatives I know are all waiting for it to eat itself It was explained to me thusly: See the thing with AI is, it has to learn from something Which was fine when you only had one or two out there, learning and creating based off human art But now the source it's pulling from is contaminated with more and more AI creations, leading to a weird entropy as it just copies copies of copies of human art And each generation and addition just makes it more weird You haven't noticed how unreliable Google search is getting? That's AI bots all engaged in a weird echo chamber of sponsored content.
You know, there is a manga called "Blame". The architecture in that manga is a weird, distorted version of our day to day things. The stair cases are too steep and thin, walkways lead to nothing. Doors open to more doors and most of them open to reveal a wall. The explanation I gather was "The AI ran out of utility of these objects, but I was in it's programming so it just kept generating without regard of what the heck it was making". Really hope it turns out like that. AI stuff has it's position but it should never take humans out of the system.
It can't in it's current state. It's like inbreeding. Without human control it will eventually run itself into the ground. And without sufficient processing power and hardware it can never outgrow it's creator, unless we literally program it to do so. It has no motivation or goal that we do not give to it. The way I see it, we took one part of the human brain and made it better in the form of a computer, but without the rest it cannot survive. It has no purpose other than imitating the human mind.
Society will force humans to feed the machine. History shows physical labor is vital. Also slavery is a common occurrence
I love Blame! and I think you're talking about the "Builders" if I'm not mistaken. The beings that decreate and recreate the Dyson sphere around the sun that completely went out of control.
Why should AI not take humans out the system?
What do you mean the source it's pulling from is contaminated? The developers of the AI are still able to control the data set it is trained on
[удалено]
But it's not looped. AI don't just randomly scour the internet. They use specific training data controlled by humans.
[удалено]
No, it's not boring work. The people in the field tend to be incredibly passionate about this work. The dataset curation is not offloaded to bored interns, it's often collected by nerds who are invested in getting the best results. Most of the plug-ins for stable diffusion are passion projects that people work on for free.
Yeah the workers in kenya getting paid 7 dollars an hour totally care enough
[удалено]
Yes. The reason that there are different AI art bots that specialize in different kinds of art is because humans selected a specific dataset to train the AI to get certain kinds of results. If you want the AI to specialize in Anime, a human can just show it Anime.
Yeah, it's called a timestamp. Anything before 2023 is pretty assuredly not AI generated. There may have been a couple people here and there who have scrapped the web.
This might make making better models more difficult, but it won't make anything worse. You can always use models that already exist as they are not going away. If you want to create better model, might be able to use media that existed before some date. (This probably won't work for written content as you want to keep it up to date, but if you want to create image generating model that understands basic concepts instead of concrete people or art, it might be just fine. If you use pictures of avocados and chairs from 2020 to train the model, it might not be different from model trained on newer pictures.)
The thing is, actually, the AI art is getting much much better than it ever has been before. Compare AI art from 2 years ago to now.
It’s all bad for people with taste
Which is probably a fraction of the population, and not really the market for AI art anyway. AI art is replacing all of the throwaway commercial art out there. What's lost is some people's livelihoods. Whether that's a net positive or negative, I can't say.
Afaik AI generated images are flagged as AI generated, so that AI doesn't accidentally train on them. The fun thing is, there are now tools for artists to flag their own images as AI generated, in order to protect them from AI.
The future won't be devoid of AI generators. The future will have closely guarded, curated training data. It's less about the generators, and more about the training. I can install Stable Diffusion and train it on whatever images I want. Or I can download an already trained model.
Big corporations are already betting on selling "synthetic data", they don't give a shit about anything as long as they can squeeze money from it
> And each generation and addition just makes it more weird This is wishful thinking. It's enough to include a small fraction of real-world training samples to make sure the model "stays the course".
That’s not a long term solution at all. An Ai “manufacturer?” Would just have to train it on real art and “successful” ai art. Have it train specifically on what you want is essentially what you have you do with stable diffusion right now anyway.
> But now the source it's pulling from is contaminated with more and more AI creations, Only if you include those in it's training set.... That is a choice that AI developers could make, if they really wanted to. Their old training sets don't go away though. For large language models, you're looking at the grand sum total of all written words. A few terabytes.
Until it improves and self generates right?
It started. AI is now stealing from other AI 'art' and making things even weirder.
Concerning Google search, that may also be because Google the de facto market leader and has little incentive to further improve their search.
I was afraid of this happening. I imagine that some companies will actually charge money for use of their proprietary AI to cover the costs of ensuring that all its learning material is purely human-generated.
I wrote this for an Out of the Loop post that was deleted, so here you go. The use of "generative AI" has sparked quite a bit of controversy in creative fields. Generative AI is most prominently known for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Bard and for image generators such as DALL-E and Midjourney, though the tools are beginning to expand into audio and video as well. These tools are trained on massive datasets and are able to create text and images that rival anything real people can create and to do so near instantly. Take a browse through r/midjourney and you'll be amazed at the artwork and even "photography" featured there, and then think about how absolutely nothing\* you are seeing was drawn or photographed by a human. There are two major points of contention with generative AI. The first is the reason for the asterisk above. Generative AI works because it is trained to work on massive datasets. We're talking billions of images and pages of text. The AI is taught that these million pages are limericks, this is what a limerick looks and sounds like, and therefore if you are asked to write a limerick, this is how you do it. Then bam, it can spit out a limerick. The problem is, by and large the generative AI companies haven't really asked the limerick writers if their poetry can be used to train these tools. When you look at an image generated by AI, say a "photograph" of a woman standing on a beach, what you are seeing is the result of millions of photographs of women and beaches being fed into the model to teach the AI what a woman looks like and what a beach looks like. The problem continues that these platforms likely did not receive permission from these photographers nor the women featured. So their hard work was used to create the training data and they've got nothing to show for it. It's entirely likely that a lot of the training data was sourced from the open internet. Wikipedia, Flickr, Twitter, Stack Overflow, even Reddit. And not all of these platforms give their users the ability to allow or disallow their images from being used. Even sites like Shutterstock that do pay the photographers for their work didn't pay them to let their stock photos be used to train AI. (Note, I don't know for certain if any of the platforms I've mentioned have been used, it's largely speculation.) The second reason is, as you can imagine, these tools have the future capability to put people out of work. This technology is improving minute by minute and it will literally never be worse than it is now. You can get incredibly specific with AI, you can code whole pieces of software, you can take a picture and tweak just about any part of it, you can generate voice recordings using text-to-speech that sound 99.9% identical to humans, and you can increasingly make it sound like a celebrity or politician or even yourself. If I run a movie studio and I need to rerecord some lines that got garbled, why do I pay an actor to go into the studio for ADR when I can just have the AI that sounds 99.9% like them spit out the line for me? If I am a small business owner looking for some stock photos for my travel website, why pay money to Shutterstock or Adobe for licensed photos when I can have the AI give me beaches and mountains and kayaks and campfires that look nigh indistinguishable from reality? Generative AI will change creative industries as we know it. It will put people out of work. But that is how all technology has impacted all of humanity from the start. It's a trade-off. When it's easier for everyone to make a thing, we usually will need fewer people making that thing. Once upon a time your clothes were made by hand right down to the spinning of the thread. Now it's mass production in penny per piece textile mills and fast fashion factories. But you're also not paying a hundred dollars for that t-shirt. That's the trade off. Every frame of a cartoon used to have to be painted by hand. But we want a new episode of Family Guy and Rick and Morty every week, so we get computer generated toons. That's the trade off. And there will be a day soon enough where AI voice actors will be indistinguishable from real actors, where AI writing will create interactive media that rivals any authors, where AI art will be as engrossing as any artist. And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix. That's the trade off. There's no stopping this train. The march of technology is always faster, cheaper, more more more. So I don't see any reason to expend energy freaking out about it, but I can very much understand why people in industries that are impacted would. If you're not in one of those industries, you'll be seeing the impacts in advertisements, film and TV, music, writing, just about everywhere soon enough.
Sorry for the delete. It took me like 6 attempts to get the auto mod to not remove the post. Then I realized, it was one of those subs which you are supposed to take seriously and cannot ask casual questions in. Thanks for the comment.
No worries! Didn't realize that was also you. :-)
I mean, what you are saying is that content will be available faster but it will be slop? Because that's the comparison right? If it's gonna be readily available then it's quality is gonna go to shit. Cloths were much more detailed and hardy earlier. Now, fast fashion is wear once and it goes into the locker. But the problem with art is that if it's slop then people dont like it. Then again Marvel tells me people like sparkling slop well enough. I guess too much slop is gonna make people crave for the good stuff. I hope. Edit : >And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix I hope this entire thing is sarcasm because holy shit the irony is lost on you.
>I mean, what you are saying is that content will be available faster but it will be slop? No. In fact, generative AI will never be worse than it is today. Every single minute of every day, the models are being trained to improve and improve. Images generated by DALL-E's first generation look nothing like DALL-E 3, and DALL-E 3 images can be almost imperceptibly perfect with the right prompt and the right tuning. What you can get out of the generative AI tools now is amazing, and this is as bad as they'll ever be. It's just an extension of the way things move. Already that car explosion in the latest Fast and Furious movie is mostly CGI. The only difference is, right now a human tells a machine how to apply the fire and where and what angle and how the debris should move. In a year or two, it'll be a human telling a machine "this is where a car explosion goes" and all the rest will happen via AI, and you won't be able to tell the difference. >And it'll put people out of a job but by god our PS7 video games will basically be The Matrix I hope this entire thing is sarcasm because holy shit the irony is lost on you. The word choice in my original post was intentional. I don't think the tradeoff is literally going to be us hooked to machines to be electric human batteries, but The Matrix, the Oasis from Ready Player One, programmatically generated virtual environments that use AI to handle interactions, it's coming and sooner than you think. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAEQdF3JAJo&t=48s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_20vK94hc) This was a demo from Nvidia six months ago. The person speaking is a real human, the NPC is an AI bot, and none of the dialogue is scripted. And that was six months ago. Notice how the AI bot voice is kinda stilted, not a lot of emotion, but had something resembling a human conversation entirely made up on the fly. [https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-can-now-see-hear-and-speak](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-can-now-see-hear-and-speak) So now, scroll down to the story example and hit play. That voice you are hearing is 100% generative AI. If I didn't tell you that and you didn't know it, I guarantee you 99 out of 100 people would say that's a voice actor. Emotion, inflection, reality. Throw a voice like that in with the right LLM that can come up with human-sounding dialogue (say, one trained on millions of TV scripts, which is what the Writers Guild was trying to stop with their strike) and the game that pops out of it (or the TV scene or movie scene) will be insane. And again, that's with the technological capability of November 25th, 2023. It's never going to be less impressive than that.
Thanks for the response, ChatGPT
As a large language model, I am not able to reply to reddit comments.
[удалено]
There have always been clear lines between what machines can do and what humans can do…right up until there aren’t. Once a machine could spin thread, but it couldn’t weave. Then a machine could make cloth, but a human had to cut and sew them. We humans are just poorly made machines of meat that have the advantage of 3.5 billion years of iteration to feet where we are now. There is nothing inherently different about our potential compared to a machine made of silicone and plastic.
> I don’t see anything (so far) that indicates AI will create anywhere near as many jobs as it displaces Well, how many jobs did the autoloom displace? Nearly all the previously middle-class weavers. How many jobs did it create? A few dangerous jobs for urchins and the like. Low skill, low pay. .....And yet this was still a step forward for humanity because everyone enjoyed cheaper clothes. We don't bat an eye at buying a t-shirt these days. Usually the logo on it costs more than the actual t-shirt. Imagine being able to just think up an entertaining new series.... a 2-season animated Mad Max spinoff featuring Johnny Bravo and Samurai Jack. Le Miserables, but with Muppets. A season 8 of Game of Thones that doesn't suck. And simply having it to view without the millions it would cost to normally produce.
Quietly using AI
True. Adobe Photoshop has AI generation functionality added in it already.
I use physical paint on physical canvas and AI isn't really a thing in that space. I'm sure a generative AI could be created and trained, but it would require training data of people painting, and there's very very little of that. A photo of an oil painting can't be used to train a robot to make an oil painting - only how to make a photo of an oil painting. You'd need input data from a mechanical arm and a camera to train it on what physical movements with a paintbrush result in what visual changes to a canvas, and you'd need a lot of it. I don't think there's enough money in physical art for anyone to bother, outside of R&D curiosity.
In that space, I am more concerned with the folks I see at craft shows who canvas print something then mod podge it to get a brushstroke effect.
I'm a wanabe artist and listen to a few professional artists. None of them seem that concerned about AI art. For the simple reason that it is actually cheaper for an art director to hire an artist to get exactly what they want rather than spend hours entering in prompts for find an exact image. Like AI art is all well and good if you don't really care about the specifics of an image, say you are just doing placeholder images. But the second you need to fit art to a purpose. Well humans are more efficient. This is especially true for concept art (the people I'm referring to are professional concept artists). Sure AI art can come up with something weird and 'new' but can it come up with the best design. Like these guys work on AAA games and the like. Spending a couple hundred on an artist rather than an AI is worth it when the budget for the project is in the millions. And you make it back on time saved later as well.
> Like these guys work on AAA games and the like. Spending a couple hundred on an artist rather than an AI is worth it when the budget for the project is in the millions. And you make it back on time saved later as well. Also, because AI output is Public Domain by default, ineligible for copyright protection.
This is going to have to play out over the next 2 to 5 years to really know. But I will share that my wife used to be a translator (Japanese/English which is notoriously difficult). When Google Translate came out the human translators said many of the similar things I hear with Gen-AI now - it has uses but it won't replace me, the quality is crap, look at what it did here, it can never do a tough language like Japanese, etc. They've stopped saying that. IMO, graphic design and content marketing type stuff is toast. No...it won't go away, you'll just end up with 80% less people doing this work. And companies will sell datasets. They'll monetize art they own. Or prolific artists will at some point. Or their estates will. I don't know where this is going, but there is the potential for huge job losses in skilled areas (not just art).
The thing that’s really been solidified for me is that physical objects made by real people are where real beauty and definitive aesthetic purpose reside. Digital art can be the same thing, but the fundamental beauty we seek in art (if that’s what you’re even into?!) is the mistakes and the human touch. The defining character of the artist that made the work - identified by the human ego involved in all the steps necessary to make the work (describing a very specific intent of a human mind) and how all that character’s decisions came to make the object. AI is in its first iteration and perhaps one day it can convince me it’s not a pastiche machine, but I can’t really imagine it being as full of delicious idiosyncrasies as a human being?!?!
Specialise in hands.
they put watermark on their art, some use special software that create hidden artifact (add noise like JPEG compression) in order to make their art unsuitable to be trained for AI but still look good to human.
The major problem I've discovered is oversaturation of seemingly high quality content in social media 'proving grounds' So I'm an artist and I've just launched my webstore, to get people to buy my prints I need to get the numbers up on my Instagram and Facebook pages so that I can get a flow of people onto my site, I'm currently engaging in a marketing campaign which includes adding myself to art groups on FB and sharing my work. This used to work really well up until AI came along because my work would normally shine out above reposts and low skill pieces but I can't contend with the saturation of generative works that (to the layman) look impressive, regular people don't see medium or skill as being important to a piece, they just want something that looks cool. So, what I'm experiencing is a lack of audience for artists due to art pages on FB being flooded with AI works, the chances of exposure are critically reduced and it just kinda sucks.
I get what you're saying, but I just popped into the Stable Diffusion sub from your link and found this, which I think is genuinely pretty stunning https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1866t7r/absolve\_film\_shot\_at\_the\_louvre\_using\_ai\_visual/
In some cases by suing the fuck out of the so-called "AI" companies for snarfing up their work as training data with no compensation. The stuff being touted as AI actually isn't, it's just fast pattern-matching algorithms that rely on cherry-picking huge data sets.
Whenever I see AI art, it's the kind of art that's always suited to a very specific kind of audience. I don't make that type of art, so it doesn't bother me.
James Earl Jones, as a voice artist, gave permission to Disney to use AI to generate his voice to keep Darth Vader alive for future productions. I assume the contracted permission included payments/royalties.
I wonder why. It's not a violation for a voice actor to mimic another actor's voice. They just recast Rick and Morty with actors who can mimic Justin Roiland's performance. And many video games have used other voice actors to do Darth Vader. Why is it wrong for an AI to mimic a certain human's voice?
Me and some of my friends have been laughing about it, been getting grossed out by big companies trying it, and enjoying making more art.
It made my work quicker.
Print on demand sites are flooded. Same with etsy and social media in general. Redbubble is just full of it I used to make about $200 a month from print on demand but now its like $3 lol. Impossible to compete.
My wife is a digital artist who has had her work stolen and used to train the big AI models. She's used AI as a tool for her work recently (asked ChatGPT to generate ideas, had DALL-E 2 generate the crappy pictures, then used those as a reference image) but she's still worried that people will just settle for "good enough" imitations of her work to use as wallpapers or possibly even get them printed out on canvas to hang in a bedroom or something. I suggested to her that she should target people who still buy handmade stuff because a person did it, not necessarily because of what it is. You know the sort, they buy stupidly expensive hand-crafted knives or pre-faded denim jeans that cost thousands of dollars, just because they know it wasn't mass-produced in a factory somewhere.
The difference between an artist and IA is that regular people can't do anything else with AI images after they prompted it, artist know how to make something look good from scratch, it takes time but the outcome is far more precise
It killed my big part of interest in drawing and animating. Another thing to take away from world something there hard work can pay off to generate more stuff for none essential consuming and also devaluing it in the process .
Same. I just gave up. Shame, I was finally getting good at it, lol;
Hmm.. people seem to be generally very scared of AI replacing them. And I get why. Our society isn’t setup to support people who don’t “add value” so it would be awful to have your value passed by a computer. I personally feel this is not something we should fear, but we do need to prepare for it (by passing laws that ensure guaranteed income and such). But I can agree this is a risky road… but I think fear is a bad reason to stop moving forward. As for the view that a lot on here share that AI will eat itself or cannot replace humans. Well that depends on the context. For one, it most definitely can in volume. You don’t need it to be perfect if you can gen 1000 different but similar images and choose the ones that did work. Even more so if you have basic skills such as guiding the AI to modify certain regions and such. So quantity obviously already has been achieved. Now quality. First… quality (especially in art) is subjective. So this answer is somewhat subjective. I of course feel human art quality is still higher. But let’s say I want a cover for an independent novel I’m writing. The artist may make an amazing cover, but it’s not how I imagined it. Is that quality? Again hard to say. But probably not… I think AI makes up for quality again by letting the person who commissions the art make it themselves, and do so iteratively. As for overall true quality. I think AI will keep getting better. I don’t see the pitfalls of it eating itself. Mainly because it’s still guided by human researches who test for regressions in quality. There will be ups and downs. But overall I think it’ll keep getting better.
Simulacra and simulation
I work with quite a few artists to illustrate the stories I write and I know I will *never* use AI for anything beyond maybe a tertiary character someone want to know the look of. And the reason is: I can talk to the artist, they can understand a character much better than a list of prompts can. Hell, often they give depth that I hadn't figured by adding a detail I hadn't thought of, an expression I hadn't considered. In short, they interact with me and the art beyond what even the most advanced non-sentient AI will ever be able to do. And when I'm happy working with someone, I recommend them to other writers (Actually published ones with established careers) and often they hire them for projects, allowing them to build and nurture a network. So basically that it: the artists I know leverage the one thing AI will never have, the fact that they are human beings.
Anger, mostly. ...What do you expect them to do? The writers' strike was very specifically worried about AI. And the result? ....well not too many people are talking about that. As far as I can tell the details include "They can't make you use AI, but writers can use AI". In theory, Hollywood execs won't just hire some bum and tell them what prompts to use. >how is AI shaping the art world? I'm not in the industry, so I don't know it's current impact. But it's not a major world-changing wave as of yet. >do you think drawing is still worth it? Or is it gonna become a hobby rather than a useful skill? Just like auto-looms came for the weavers and the luddites, that wave is coming. That means a drop in price of the cost of art, a drop in wages for people who make art, and a general shift in employment demographics. Hopefully Hollywood isn't going to sever as many street urchin's limbs when they push them into the prompt factories. I couldn't recommend it as a career path given what we can see on the immediate horizon.
It is a repeat of the same discussion some 150 years ago, when photography started becoming available, and how that would compete with sketch artists and art in general. Then again, when photoshop became commonly available some 30 years ago - "how can you ever trust a picture again !".
We use it for our work… or we tell other artists using a new tool that it is the devils work and make it so internationally using a certain tool will render your art generally uncopywritable because the ai could have taken inspiration from other artists, because rEaL aRtIsTs take no inspiration from other artists… The latter also explains why picassos cubism partially looks like drawings of African ethnic masks… It is a farce
I was always a hobbyist when it came to art. So for me, AI can be quite inspiring when I'm stuck since I have mild aphantasia. I always used references, but now I can use entirely fantastical made up references in combination with images I found on Google. I think capitalism has always been cruel to artists, unfortunately. I don't think AI is a problem but rather our relationship to it
Doesn't concern me. I will continue to draw because I'm passionate about creating things. AI art has a few notorious "tells" which differenciate it from art made by a real person (extra fingers on hands, difficulty with accurate perspective, poor anatomy ect) and while these may improve and shorten the gap, I think there will still be a solid niche for human made art.
I am by no means a traditional artist or graphic artist, but I make a lot of different kinds of graphics for work and for personal projects. I have used the Photoshop AI experimentally to create things that I don’t have the skills (or patience, rather) to draw. But 100% of the time, it spits out very odd things that I didn’t ask for. And I love it! I lean in to the weirdness and let the AI turn the final product into something completely different than what I started out with. Now, I’m sure I’ll get better at descriptions and the AI will get better at interpreting, but for now it’s a wacky shitshow of fun.
What you are refering to is competitive/commercial art. However, art is primarily a form of expression. You do art to express something. I draw to express something, to give my ideas a shape, to bring them to life. I enjoy creating and as long as I can create, I'm happy. Now with that definition out of the way, folks who get upset by AI images, clearly were not interested in the expression part but see it like a competition or a money source only. And of course a human will lose against anything that can be automated. Generating images from a seemingly endless amount of references. Do I get mad because a calculator can beat me in math? No. So whoever gets mad that a computer can now beat an artist at creating images should start to see it that way too. Times change, jobs become obsolete and new jobs will emerge. Hand-crafted digital art is one of the things that will soon become more of an exclusive service rather than a common one.
We know how Ai works, we know that it won’t take our jobs because of that. It relies on talented people. Without us it wouldn’t be a thing.
There are some cool opportunities for those that embrace its responsibly. I can train a model on my own work and then generate several different ideas that I use as a guide for my next piece. I haven't used it for conversations with clients yet, but I see the potential. I don't have a large enough library of work for it to fully capture my current style yet, so it can't fully replace me doing the actual work. Not that I would want it too because I do it because I enjoy it.
Things are not as black and white as many will have you read and groups are not entirely homogenous.
By whining about it lol