Yup it would pretty much turn Bangyas into kpop culture instead part of Visual Kei already is about looks the other half is music
1 Like
this is not twitter…
you don’t get rich which ragebait.
listen to the wishdom of your saviour and leave on the journey to your promised land: r/stablediffusion (or optionally also facebook).
I think i have a new/fresh opinion on this? At least i don’t see anyone else having said it, and mine isn’t AI good / AI bad
TL;DR don’t be lazy and no one will come at u for being lazy
I’d argue what we’re calling AI suddenly isn’t a new thing entirely, but the paradigm shift is around how easy/quick it’s become to do immoral things bc we developed a particular tech more quickly than our societal morals could develop - hence it’s not societally accepted like eating a chicken or societally condemned like eating a parrot but divisive.
If a hammer’s invented and used to hit nails cool, but if used to hit people is a problem. There’s nothing “AI” text-to-image generators can do now that wasn’t possible before - and i’d argue would generate similar complaints - it just got way easier and faster, so we see it more now
If i hired someone on fiverr to draw me album art in the style of Miyazaki, that’d be morally bad and low value of me. It’d be even less morally accepted, and even lower value if i downloaded a frame from a movie he worked for and changed some colours in MS Paint before calling it mine. But if i hired a guy on fiverr to draw me album art the way he does, that’d be morally normal and normal value of me.
It’s easy to imagine that intending to duplicate someone’s labour instead of compensating them is bad - but bc AI is so new, i think we get confused and call using the thing bad, forgetting we already had a framework of stealing / non-paying / non-crediting = bad
Likewise the other main (totally legitimate!) complaint is that someone won’t get hired for what they would have before. Sometimes artists put out an album cover that’s a doodle they personally drew (and i mean a low-effort doodle, this doesn’t apply if they’re actually a good visual artist). For a band like the Gallo, it makes sense, even tho we don’t love it, bc they’re a cheap small indies band, ofc they gotta cut corners. It’s entirely possible they just couldn’t afford an artist in that release’s budget. But for a large band that’s not applicable - like what do you mean l’Arc couldn’t afford an artist for a release, no one would believe that honestly. If budgets are low, there’s certainly low-budget artists who’d be thrilled to work for a large exposure band.
Come to think of it, years before Dall-E & chatGPT, i used to feel what i more realize is a similar thought when a band’s cover art would be a group photo of them. Like y’all could have paid a person for art, we can all guess you’re doing this to avoid paying someone
So my thoughts at this diru PV don’t actually require factoring in AI to stay the same - they’re a well-known band who very well could “pay with exposure”. (music videos are categorically razor-thin profits; no one takes these for money but for art/networking/prestige/portfolio-building). So instead of hiring set designers, actors, idk anyone with a vision - there’s what my mind sees as blank space
I used Dall-E myself a whole bunch in this one project! So ofc there’s got to be a way for me to justify my own use of it or i’d have taken it down, or be a hypocrite.
It’s a soundtrack w/ 108 tracks; i wanted an illustrative image for each track, but commissioning that many actual arts is ludicrously out of my budget, so Dall-E. But this same project already had:
- me who wrote & recorded the whole thing
- Dan who back in 2018 wrote text descriptions for each track
- credited guest artists who wrote cameo tracks
- a paid artist who drew all the characters
- a paid artist who photographed & edited the covers
- a paid photographer who took our photos
so by this point, i wouldn’t feel bad about including zero-effort sketches in the “track art” position, so i don’t think i’ve hurt anyone by including these Dall-E’s in that position. But using one for album art or as the actual representation of the game’s characters would feel bad to me.
Likewise - a band idk having a different print on the back of each postcard they sell at shows, that wouldn’t bother me bc it’s not someone’s job otherwise. But a band using “AI mastering” on one of their tracks would bother me, bc that’s someone’s job otherwise.
If a small band wanted to make a visualizer for every track on their album so you could have fitting backgrounds while you listened on YouTube, cool, no one does this
But an AI-VFX music video to me feels like - there’s people who do this job, you could have just paid them
Moral of my story is i mostly see AI generated content like a blank space, and i don’t feel a question like “why’d you use AI?” but rather “why didn’t you pay your VFX crew for something here?”
8 Likes
Artists are always trying to do something in the style of X and either failing and therefore making something new unintentionally or putting other things in it and avoiding making it seem like a copy in that way.
If something made by AI is similar enough to violate copyright law then that’s a different thing and the same would apply as if an artist you hired made something too similar to something copyrighted by someone else.
If AI makes a better product then it will become the main avenue of creating media but if it doesn’t then it won’t and there’s nothing to worry about.
Oh, we got a thread here now. If anyone wants to watch a neat doc on AI stuff, and a pretty good high-level explanation of Generative AI in lamens terms, check this out:
(timestamped for GAN and then Diffusion Models)
**They took it off YT, use this link timestamp is 41:50.
As for my feelings on AI art in particular (not the other applications), take these “anime art generators” you see getting peddled online for example. The products are always these side lit portrait pieces with detailed shadows and gradients, and while the first one you see might come off as super impressive, you then spot the million other ones with the same style and your eyes start to roll to the back of your head. The worst part about AI art, other than the unethical bits, is that most folks are terribly predictable, aren’t discerning enough, and won’t care that these regurgitated prompts are flooding the space. I’m not even blaming them as everyone has their own preferences and priorities regarding art, but man… the sheer volume** of the stuff getting pushed out is so dispiriting. While you can argue that artists can benefit from AI aiding in ideation or fleshing out existing pieces, the reality is that most people are happy with the cookie-cutter shit. The digital art space is soon going to look like the Louvre for spray can artists.
**Should add a bit to this. What worries me in particular is the amount of AI art getting pushed to the top, kinda like dropship products from China taking over online retailers hurting small businesses except with this, it’s smaller artists. This could be a temporary thing due to the “generative inbreeding” phenomenon, but I feel like all you would need to do is control what it pulls from. I digress.
2 Likes
we can’t benefit from technology that was designed to replace us from the very start.
I’m going to throw one example of how money talks in the software business, but the team who has created one of the most sophisticated oil painting simulations back in 2010, later sold it to microsoft, resulting in a dumbed down customer release of the same techonology, equivalent to smearing poster paint with a child brush set.
from there, one of the guys behind the code went onto working for google maps (no published papers on anything graphics related on his website from 2011), the other one added bits and pieces of his techonology to photoshop - where they never evolved from 2012-ish - and launched his own watercolor simulation app, which is still alive, but it does one thing only - ink and watercolor medium - and it’s not on mac, because development is expensive.
as I was looking up what the latter was up to, I stumbled upon a blog post on their website, outlining that three other smaller graphics apps developed during 2000s more or less folded down, one of them being an adobe proof of concept internal project, which turned into a rather mediocre and unimpressive iOs painting app.
there’s literally no interest in developing digital art tools that would benefit the artists in any way - research is expensive, and inventing new ideas is hard, but no one does the bare minimum at this point.
on top of that, there’s already a precedent of courts not defending artists rights anymore in case with the old school plagiarism ( Photographer Jingna Zhang Loses Plagiarism Case Against Artist | Rangefinder. ) which - when spiced up with tech start-up money - will make it all even more curious and exciting for artistic people in the future - if you have ever nagivated the c.ntery that is conventional gallery art scene when exposed to digital art, you’ll know how they always treated CG people, but when the actual cg scene turns around and goes this way, it all sorts of poisons the morale, to say the least.
it pretty much already killed the print on demand merch scene for people who used to have some coin coming through etsy/society 6/etc; even when the actual TOS prohibits using ai gen (not every platform cares in the first place), you can’t realistically screen every submission for image generator content.
in my experience, early midjourney and dall-e renders had overwhelmingly negative reaction from average viewers the moment you’ve stepped out of the reddit/twitter echo-chambers astroturfing ai gen
no one ever loved AI art more than people who wanted good art, but neither wanted to learn the skills, not wanted to pay for them.
9 Likes
My issues with “AI” (it isn’t actually artificial intelligence, it’s an advanced predictive-text/image/whatever generator) art are primarily twofold
1 - Whether or not it’s art, whether or not the database training is using ethically sourced materials, I’ve already seen friends of mine and their peers lose job opportunities to AI generation. I’ve seen how Wizards of the Coast didn’t renew a lot of their art contracts and laid off a lot of their internal art employees, then put up job postings for folks to edit AI generations and be prompt adjustors or whatever. Being a musician and knowing a lot of artists in various disciplines, it hurts
2 - The energy requirements for building and training one of these algorithms and databases is absurd. To train ONE database requires an energy consumption on par with a small industrialized nation’s energy consumption for an entire year, is my understanding. I just can’t in good faith justify that sort of energy usage for what is essentially toys for tech bros. Our planet is already burning, it’s just gonna get worse, so I can’t understand why we’re spending so many resources on something like this
4 Likes
This is similar to my take on the situation. Technology has facilitated immorality since the beginning of time, and so what I see going on here with AI is really no surprise to me. I 100% understand why artists are upset, though and I empathize with them.
1 Like
they’ve made such a big splash over this winter when twitter called out AI generated background in one of their promo campaigns, and they claimed they stood for human-made art.
so sad (yet, I’ve noticed the rendering quality of WOTC art on the public web go down a lot over the past few years, with basically the same illustrators either given tighter deadlines, or less money for work - it was already a very uniform downgrade in quality back when AI wasn’t a thing.)
I feel like no one cares about this aspect at all because no one in the important consumer markets is hit with the reality of the costs of keeping this, or say, music streaming infrastructure running. kinda like “Bill Gates is proud to announce he spends 30 mil. per annum on sustainable private jet fuel”, but on an industry level.
with streaming, if anything, it did bring a renaissance in vinyl sales a few years after a lot of bands realized this won’t be the new money making opportunity - it will at best provide opportunities to promote their stuff.
I wonder where we are heading with the art situation, though, since I think this will end faster than it looks on the surface, and I kinda have my thoughts why.
3 Likes
I still don’t understand how people can see pink mishapen creatures with horns and giant mouths and everything melding into each other and complain about how 3 arms isn’t a part of normal human anatomy.
6 Likes
OpenAI has hired a raft of top lawyers in the past year, according to the Washington Post, as it gears up to face over a dozen major lawsuits.
OpenAI and other artificial intelligence companies have denied wrongdoing and claimed that their use of copyrighted material falls under fair use, a legal doctrine that allows for some unlicensed use of copyrighted materials under certain conditions. The legal strategy poses a major test for copyright law, and the result may wreck artists’ livelihoods or OpenAI’s bottom line.
In a submission to a UK government committee earlier this year, lawyers for OpenAI contended that “legally, copyright law does not forbid training.” OpenAI also stated in that submission that, without access to copyrighted works, its tools would cease to function.
3 Likes
A part of me is afraid of the potential ramifications of this, the other part is screaming “LET’S GO”
2 Likes
a real artist has a sense of what things are intented and what are mistakes, you clearly don’t poses this sense. because you are no artist.
there is no actual anatomical connection between this different arms they just cut onto each other, hoping you focus on one arm so much you miss the other arm,
if this truly was intented there would be a far bigger focus on this scene as well but instead it hid in the background ashamed of itself.
5 Likes
Who decides what “real artists” have a sense of? How can you determine someone “isn’t an artist” because they don’t subscribe to your views on AI?
Very simple AI “artist” are no artists simply heartless content farmers.
if you had the unfortunate experience of ending at one in any website you will understand it instantly.
3 Likes
you gradually figure out things like anatomy, particularly functional anatomy, through direct life drawing with models, a variety of which is strongly preferred;
this is one skill you can’t really grasp by making direct copies of flat images (i.e. copying master drawings), and it’s pretty valuable because humanoid character bodies share the functional part of their carcass, and, for example, even having a replica skeleton in classroom won’t teach you all the nuance (I was in my mid 20s, having years of drawing practice at that time, when an anatomy teacher pointed out that art school grade skeletons aren’t even anatomically correct to start with, they’re made with omissions to stay consistent and not fall apart)
what AI art does in particular is making a superficial lowest effort copy, a surface level rip-off that has no understanding of the process and no deeper knowledgebase an artist would preferably develop if overall quality and meaning are on the table, but we are not going in there lol
someone making a puppet of said demon figure would have to understand how to build the skeleton, add “meat”, and finish with decorative spooky extras, even if it doesn’t get the skinpaint treatment, etc, to save time.
5 Likes
@blossomingRuin @nekkichi Thank you both for the elaboration - but I feel like either my comment was misunderstood, or I made initially it in misunderstanding. I meant this in more of an abstract sense. The post Blossom originally responded to highlighted that the un-human nature of the work makes it congruent with the concept and the execution of the AI. It serves in function of the work’s intent.
I am an artist and have done drawing as hobby for a lot of years, I ended up putting that hobby moreso onto the side for music making in recent years but I still have developed artistic skillsets and learned to view things with an artist mindset.
actively analysing my suroundings for especially pleasing sceneries to take sketches of in my sketchbook, learning how the anatomy of the body works and rules of colour theory and trying to put those things into practice, learning them so I can use them on artwork casually without needing much thinking, I have learned skills to put them easily into paper, while I remain in a flow in which I also know how to express myself with my knowledge, like I could make a character with unnaturally long rosting leg prothesis and I could use it as a metaphor for how this character lost its humanity trough a past traumatic experience and now struggles to interagate with his surounding anymore, but of course that would make no sense in reality, why would you make leg prothesis which would be too long and therefore make you struggle to actually move in your used circles/movements?
That is what makes it art, design decisions are connected to feelings and visualisations of concepts.
this is what makes the difference between an artist and a non artist. We don’t just see an image we see thoughts of the creator we possibly also can see parts of the creation process. And we know how it is to create and make decisions for every single part of the drawing in its full detail.
prompts can never do the fine tuning. I can order a low angle or a very low angle possible add a low angle with a focus on the nude ass of one guy, but I have no control of the angle over that. at which place in the image should be the horizon line. You can’t tell that the text to image generator the way you could draw it yourself.
artists could explain you what makes an artwork good, AI prompters (vomiters) can just go by a rough gut feeling, of it looks good.
5 Likes
I specifically referred to the image crop that was used as an example why this approach is not artistic - it is a derivative, badly done imitation of artistic work.
it is a low-cost tool made by people who likely have never done anything to improve artistic process for people who actually create the images AI was trained on because they never had the financial incentive to even attempt entering that market and creating anything worthwhile.
I’ll pull this quote out, again:
OpenAI also stated in that submission that, without access to copyrighted works, its tools would cease to function.
I’m not sure I’m getting my point across either to be entirely honest - I don’t think all AI imagery in that video is garbage, but when it’s ass, it’s ASS, and seeing people come up with paragraphs of explanations why it is passable when literally any real artist working in any medium won’t make same mistake no matter how weird or out there their artistic style and choices are for me is like realizing I won’t be on the same page as some people, but I really feel bothered in this case.
6 Likes
I was not being sarcastic by the way - and if you think art needs to mimic things that could exist in physical reality then you don’t understand the purpose of art.