 |
AI-generated and AI-assisted contentby
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Viewed: | 19,225 times |
| Added: | 2 years, 1 month ago |
| Site News Item: | yes |
| " | CaolanTheWolfYT wrote: |
| Looks all good to me, making it a rule to have the ai_assisted tag is a good idea, it means it's easy for people who don't want to see ai art to easily block it all from their blocked keywords 👍 |
| " | KlinKitty wrote: |
| Yeah, AI art is very flawed, but it is still an interesting tool. This seems like a good step; let people experiment with it, but be restrictive re: the training data and selling it as original work. |
| " | Why do you think anti-nazi and antifascist groups and writers in scifi depict armies of cyborgs as fascist regimes? |
| " | Tell me why a consumerist who can do it themselves would pay someone who uses AI? |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| We shall prevail! 📺 🔨 |
| " | ILoveJudyHopps wrote: |
| literally 1984 |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁 |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁 |
| " | OnyKR wrote: |
|
I like the idea to make the Inkbunny own tool for this service :3 That gonna help much for people which use it to post their arts. |
| " | In all cases you must not upload content for which you used closed-source tools or those which charge a subscription fee to access a gated model. For example, content generated by NovelAI or Midjourney must not be uploaded to Inkbunny, because the models they use are not freely available. |
|
Balmung |
| " | Balmung wrote: |
|
Sounds good! I'm actually quite excited about the requirement to disclose how an image was generated, because I hope that will result in a rapid process of refinement and improvement. The basic stuff is easy to make but gets very repetitive, but by having people show their bag of tricks we'll hopefully avoid a flood of mostly the same thing done slightly differently a hundred times. I also think it's a good idea to require some quality and variety. |
| " | Juno wrote: |
| If someone wanted to generate art using current furry artists as a reference, couldn't they just not mention that those artists were used as a reference? |
| " | our upcoming refresh of our Acceptable Content Policy |
| " | roboart wrote: |
| I also think that 25 years for a deceased artist is too long. Could it be reduced to 5 or 10 years? It would rule out using artists such as Thomas Kinkade or Pino Daeni, and I think most people would consider it OK to include them in the prompts. |
| " | GreyMaria wrote: |
|
By the time a final policy is established, one way or the other, it'll already be too late and none of them will tell you that their images are AI. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| This was actually a significant consideration - it's bad policy to make a rule you can't effectively enforce. So... we want to make it reasonably easy to comply with the rule |
| " | Avalony wrote: |
|
To me that would be a scam, because doing something with an AI doesn't make you an artist, the robot is doing it for you. And anyway, why make a commission? If the client can make the art with an AI by himself and save money. Anyone could make art with an AI. |
| " | ZekLullaby wrote: |
|
Did you really spend hours reading a comment section from a year ago? I wish I had that much free time. I still think not allowing AI on the art sites could be a net positive, that's the line and most artists will agree and it doesn't need to be a slippery slope, the sentiment is pretty settle now with over a year to discuss it. |
| " | ZekLullaby wrote: |
|
Who said I consider myself a furry? I care a lot more about the low quality results in google with all the AI pollution lately. AI generation is literally poisoning the web, but go ahead, I don't have anything else to add. I'm busy creating things I enjoy doing. Arguing isn't one. |
| " | KevinSnowpaw wrote: |
| Most importantly, Inkbunny has thus far only allowed you to upload work that YOU created or that was created for you. |
| " | KevinSnowpaw wrote: |
| On top of that the AI uses other peoples art to MAKE the art... |
| " | Which artists? |
| " | The laborious efforts of self-expression should be protected, as much as labour itself. |
| " | strikecentral wrote: |
| Making sure people understand what they're looking at and not being scammed into buying a commission that was made with no actual effort on the artist's part is not luddite at all. |
| " | AlexReynard wrote: |
| 1) I have no idea how to find the generator and model numbers of what I've been using. It's just standard-ass browser-version Stable Diffusion. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Despite what you say, those models are full of what you term "overfitting". People are doing this intentionally and even using LoRAs and DreamBooth to literally guarantee that the AI model doesn't just plagiarise, it does it so recognisably. |
| " | ChatGPT [...] breaks words into reusable tokens |
| " | NeiNing wrote: |
| This ai_art thing is completely new to me so I must ask few things: 1. Is other peoples' arts used in these arts? |
| " | KinoKinotsu wrote: |
|
Second, the exclusion of walled garden models like NovelAI and Midjourney. This basically has two effects: You will almost never see high quality ML works, furthering the impression that it is not and can not be art. *shrug* (The quality of a model is entirely based on how much money was put in to make it. It's not feasible to train a good model for free.) *double shrug* And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less." |
| " | KinoKinotsu wrote: |
|
First, the mandatory inclusion of prompts and generation data: This is basically devaluating the work itself further. By explicitly mandating that the artist divulge all their techniques for the public if they want to share their work. A cynical interpretation could read it as "You may only upload your art if you tell us exactly what paints and brushes you used, and what music was playing in the background." While making prompt data publicly available helps artists using ML make better stuff. It also means they will never be able to "compete" with each other. It is invalidating the skill that can and must be acquired to make quality works with these systems. |
| " | People who generate art are not artists. |
| " | Amaterasu wrote: |
|
Imagine if i got someone to make me a picture, i told them everything I wanted down down to a 2000 word essay and had it revised several times until it was to my liking and it took me several hours on my end reviewing revising and telling the other person any changes that should be made. Am i the artist of that picture? If you say no, then what makes that scenario any different than AI generated art? the fact that its a machine creating the art and not a human? please elaborate on how those two things are different because you want so bad for people who make ai images to be considered artists but you wouldnt extend the same rules to commissioners. |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| Furthermore, some artists who can draw well lack imagination, so only commissions are worth any attention. |
| " | And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less." |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
|
The goal is not to deliberately use bad models; it is the principle that as the models were obtained from the commons, they should be available to the commons. It's an extension of "don't use materials you don't have the right to" [to make money]. It wouldn't apply if they did what they are doing now but also made the code and models freely available, because then they'd just be charging for a technical service that anyone could do rather than collecting rent on harvested experience. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| an AI however would not be able to do this, she needs to steal A TON of artwork from other artists to get to the point what the comissioner would want from the AI. AND THAT is the problem, that an AI steals other artists work. thats why this is such a huge issue. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| is that it has transformed a common good (art made available for access - not always legally to start with) into private property for which access is almost inevitably charged for. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Many have an issue with people making money off their art, and that logically extends to those providing gated online services |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| and AI image models are restorative. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| inputs are extremely important in the output as per GIGO |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Quantum isn't random either, quantum data responds to wave functions and distribution responds to frequency. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| And no, SD treats training images as the lookup tree, the input of the lookup tree abides to GIGO. |
| " | Lol if quantum mechanics was random, quantum entanglement wouldn't work. |
| " | And the mods talk about making money from it instead of with artists, though e6 did kind of start out as a borderline piracy site prior to artists posting to it. Artists hated it so much they had to split e621 and e6ai in two, e6ai is nowhere near as successful as even other newer furry boorus, and the overall view is that most artists just don't want their artwork criminally data laundered. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| txt2img and img2img has a very different quality of output because YiffyMix lacks a great deal of image consistency in txt2img due to the sheer variance anthros and fantasy animals have compared to humans. |
| " | ...the quality of copyright protection for the crossed legs is very weak. Without the Gucci sandals (in which Blanch [the plaintiff] has no copyright interest) all that is left is a representation of a woman's legs, crossed at the ankle. That is not sufficiently original to deserve much copyright protection. |
| " | Early on, we used sketches and a mash-up photo technique called “photobashing” to try to capture the spirit of the Inquisition’s fortress. Once actual construction began, we used the development model as a base for more detailed production paintings. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Name me one reputable studio that allows unethical photobashing. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| (Stable Diffusion for instance has relatively high GPU requirements). |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| The cheapest card with 6 GB of VRAM that I can go and actually buy from a store locally right now costs 330 euros. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| It's more expensive than the 970 GTX that I have was when it was new. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| Also 35% of people in Steam hardware survey have less than 6 GB of VRAM. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| OMG. The level of elitism. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| "If you don't earn $1000, you have no right to be interested in machine learning." |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| I'm Russian. I can survive on $250 a month. I can't afford a new GPU. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| What was your point again? |
|
fireYtail |
| " | This is a furry forum, not a socialist forum. |
| " | Should we ban fan art because it uses characters created by a supposed "proletarian"? |
| " | Our production is NOT your private property, AI plagiarists! |
| " | why are you endorsing a technology that is measured by hardware core-count and memory size expenses and not the artistic merit of working artists? |
| " | And why do you think everyone is rich. |
| " |
expensive VRAM GPU integrated CPU graphics middle class and lazy non-disabled welfare-abusing classes stealing spam leeches afforded data launder mortal time heavy computation environmental damage, energy crisis and climate change corps and miners. richest people mining world population RTX GPU. second hand the best semi-affordable 300 euro second hand 300 euro cost of GPU: |
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
| " | Rakuen wrote: |
|
AI is not just magic. It's a tool, just like Photoshop is a tool. There is a skill to real-life drawing which is different to using a drawing programme with layers, an undo button, automatic filters, blurs and the ability to tweak colours after the fact, use smart selection, clone areas and so on. Similarly using AI correctly has its own skills in correctly defining prompts, combining the generated images and whatever else is done. To quote Ashtarat from higher in the comment thread: When I create AI-assisted art, I'm not jamming the 'start' button 100 times and picking the best one. It goes through hours of prompt tweaks, emphases, and several rounds of additional rendering/post production editing. You may as well ask every artist to upload all of their line art, roughs, and vectors/layers separately for each submission. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Or, wait, i seen a lot of art in my life, my own artstyle is an amalgam of the things i like in other artist's art, my brain takes all that shit and... generates drawings out of it. Is every art ever made stolen in that case? Since my brain is using everyone else's art as a subconscious "model" to generate art when i draw art. Clearly my brain has stolen all the art I have ever seen in my entire life, my body is just less effective than an A.I. and takes 2 hours to render it into an image, instead of 1 second. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
|
Also you are underselling how much computation is involved in photoshop's varous filters and tools. Photoshop is way more than a pencil.Imagine you can talk to your pencil, tell it, "make my image sharper and prettier" and the pencil says "yes master", flies out of your hand and is done 1 second later. That's not a pencil. Actually i find most of this whole debate and most of these comments very funny. I'm fairly sure most people come here to watch generic vanilla porn with generic characters fucking, while they masturbate. They don't come here to debate artistic merits, very few do. So this is all very funny when suddenly everybody cares what is or isn't art. |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| Mmm, technological singularity. Haven't heard about it recently. Maybe the humanity will be satisfied with neural waifus and will abandon technological progress. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Turn paintings into videos? Or into 3d renders? |
| " | Chira wrote: |
|
AI steals copyrighted artwork. (well a lot of art is not copyrighted but still its called respect to not steal it, an AI doesnt knows the word "respect") that is the whole issue. if you would be an artist and let me say you drawn in your career 2000 pictures (which is a lot) and now comes an AI and STEALS ALL OF THEM!!! to generate from your content new pictures and even more worse, the person using it makes money out if it with your scanned and stolen artwork. i would bet that you will be NOT happy about this. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| is a really dumb argument and it certently WONT win. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| fact is, how AI today grabs (aka steals) artwork to generate new content is not ok. if an artist wants to feed an AI with its own stuff is that ok in my opinion. if he trains the AI with his own stuff is that ok aswell. the only thing i am saying is that i find it not ok how AI takes artwork from artists without permission. if you say thats ok because its not copyrighted or the copyright ran maybe out shows this to me that you seem to have no respect torwards artists and just taking it because "its not copyrighted or copyright ran out". >w> i mean, prove me wrong but you literarly said "i would take the art if it has no copyright". |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| i would dare to say that barely anything here artwork wise is copyrighted because artists here would need to go through a lot of paperwork with the DMCA etc. and what you saying is basicly "i can take all the artwork from IB and they can do nothing *evil grin*" thats how i understood it >w>. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| However, "This thing is bad but you cannot stop everyone from doing it therefore we shouldn't try to stop it at all or make any rules" is not a good argument. By this argument one has to abolish all laws and rules, so this type of argument never works well. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| You cannot permanently stop technological progress, but you can certainly slow it down, temporarily pause it, and sometimes even push it backwards for a while. And, if the society becomes sufficiently antagonistic, they can even "nuke it all back to stone age" |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| in short, i do not understand why you both defend it that artwork gets stolen to create new content. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Being the endless devil's advocate that I am. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
|
I'm gonna pose this thesis. Shouldn't training an A.I. on copyrighted content fall under fair use? Isn't what the A.I. makes a logical equivalent of transformative work which is technically protected under fair use? |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| If I look at a bunch of artists and draw something vaguely resembling amalgam of their things, I have created transformative work protected under fair use. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Granted, A.I. isn't a person and has no right of it's own, and if it's an A.I. generating transformative work, rather than a person, I wonder where that would even fall into. |
| " | We have no plans to create our own training model from Inkbunny's art, or provide the means to generate such work through the site. |
| " | SourCherryAD wrote: |
|
I think there is some unclarity though. Like someone mentioned, there are tools in some programs that are AI powered, such as CSP's colorize tool. Many animators use this tool. Would all those animations have to be labelled as AI assisted? I also can't say I agree with the no closed or paid AI. Then the only restriction that imposes is that your AI art should be made with the shittiest resources available? Meanwhile plenty of us use paid art software such as CSP or Adobe Suite. Other than that, AI art disclaimers are totally necessary and I 100% agree with those. Overall, just wanna comment IB for not taking the big hammer approach and, as always, giving furry artists the room to express our own versions of art. |
| " | To my understanding, AI art has the same legal repercussions as art made by an animal. None of it is copy-rightable in any regard. It's pretty well accepted in the English common law countries that only products produced by people. |
| " | What's the legal test? You have to have a specific expectation of what shape and form the actions you take have on the "canvas." |
| " | To my understanding, AI art has the same legal repercussions as art made by an animal. None of it is copy-rightable in any regard. It's pretty well accepted in the English common law countries that only products produced by people. |
| " | It's not like it's hard to apply a filter or crop an image an AI produced. One could easily claim the work as one's own then. |
| " | What I want to know is how is this not going to turn into a witch hunt as the machine learning art programs get better and people start blaming newer artists of being "A.I. Generated" when they have no proof? |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
Following your example: if a hat existed that could near instantaneously project your imagination onto a canvas, and then you give everyone that hat, what then? That would entirely gut what gives the work meaning. What would be the point of being an artist anymore if it's just millions of images shat out of someone's mind every 3 seconds, one after the other? |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
Using your mind to tell your arm to draw a line on a tablet is human. Typing in lines of text which feeds a mechanical brain to do your bidding by yoinking a bunch of art from people who probably want nothing to do with this, to the best of its ability, is not human. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| I'm shaming people who steal pieces of the dining room table and have a machine use those pieces to make something similar very quickly for profit or social gain. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| If you can't draw and you wanna do it, learn. I used to fucking suck at drawing. I spent 13 years off and on. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| I think I'm gonna be done responding to this thread, because I don't really vibe with things that damage humanity. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
This is a dangerous slippery slope. Following your example: if a hat existed that could near instantaneously project your imagination onto a canvas, and then you give everyone that hat, what then? That would entirely gut what gives the work meaning. What would be the point of being an artist anymore if it's just millions of images shat out of someone's mind every 3 seconds, one after the other? |
| " | Art requires a human's touch, a soul. |
| " | Photography is the same, it requires knowledge of lighting, composition, depth of field, and so on. |
| " | The idea that the worth of art is decided by the aesthetic tastes of a gaggle of random strangers is so perverse it's hard to even express. The decisions the artist makes- hell, the MISTAKES the artist makes- are what makes art interesting at all. |
| " | The vast, vast majority of what makes thousands of dollars on the furry commission circuit is what the public would consider "perfect"- detailed, rendered, stamped out "professional art." |
| " | The idea that we should appeal to this endless appetite to see Lion King characters copied perfectly without any of the context or character or creative intrigue |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| If the price we pay is artists working in this genre going bankrupt then so be it. |
| " | "I don't care if thousands of humans starve to death so long as I get to see my well rendered Lion King characters cuddle." |
| " | There's not really any way for you to know that, if you haven't submitted anything recently, but your anecdote is dated. |
| " |
from Athari at 03 Oct 2019 15:13 from Inkbunny Support Team at 15 Sep 2022 00:53 |
| " |
from Athari at 02 Dec 2021 09:48 from Inkbunny Support Team at 16 Jul 2022 22:56 |
| " | Keris wrote: |
|
The human brain is doing something similar, you see something and get inspired by it, you learn from it. That's why there are art tutorials and so on. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| When we lose the ability to tell the difference, people will learn to stop caring and everybody will forget these rules exist. 🤪 |
| " | I don't see how you could tell a prompt to be specific with composition |
| " | to get those eyes looking up at the camera just right |
| " | Nor does it really understand layout or using the majority of the canvas space, or finding your focal point and building up from there. |
| " | I'd imagine it just kinda puts your subject in the middle of the canvas, and just kinda guesses what you wanna see :p |
| " | Can an ML content creator get /experience/? |
| " | Can they /refine/ their own work and hone it to a fine edge? |
| " | I believe this is an overreaction born out of fear. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
|
"Is the future?" Uh, says you and what anti-democratic regime? Reverting to the social darwinistic Manifesto of Italian Futurism are we now? Destroy art, worship the machine and all that world war causing hubbub. And no machines don't do what humans do, humans don't interpolate thousands of data laundered images and then psychically transfer it from neurons to paper without any effort. Artwork is protected as labour not thought. Also you'd have to have some pretty amazing superhuman hyper-phantasia to even hold such information in your brain. Considering most people can't even what they wore the day before. Art is a visuospatial learning process not a visual computational one. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Uh, says you and what anti-democratic regime?" |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Social darwinistic Manifesto of Italian Futurism?" |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Destroy art, worship the machine and all that world war causing hubbub." |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "And no machines don't do what humans do, humans don't interpolate thousands of data laundered images and then psychically transfer it from neurons to paper without any effort. Artwork is protected as labor not thought..." |
| " | Athari wrote: |
|
Screenshots and ML-assisted content are different cases. I'd say the main problem with screenshots is that they take a lot of space while nobody actually views them, so they're wasting server storage. ML-assisted art, on the other hand, does atract views and favs. Despite some people claiming that it's low quality and soulless. That means that InkBunny's users actually want to see more of it. |
| " | Athari here believes in nothing but metrics and algorithms, as that's all that matters to them. They believe artists are merely racing to receive the biggest numbers, as though this is a certain social media website. Users are likewise just a means to an end to them, demographics to be marketed to and harvested for views and favorites, more numbers under a content creator's belt rather than actual people. |
| " | They believe prompts and asking the AI for their wishes is an abstract art, requiring clever wordsmithing and years of contemplation to give them that level of “experience” |
| " | They're willing to throw so many under the bus, all because existing artists don't make the art they want at a constant pace and for free. |
| " | EmptyAli wrote: |
| All steps of picture generating video from one of the articles in the internet |
| " | recording that "noise", blended between no matter how many superposing radio/TV station signals, unless it's completely worthless noise it is still recording signals. |
| " | EmptyAli wrote: |
| Also, are you trying to tell me that it stores billions of images for every possible prompt in a 4GB file? |
| " | bestbuds wrote: |
| I don't consider collection of publicly available artworks for use as training data as art theft. These models do not stitch together or combine various artworks to make the image, they generate original images. To say that learning to do art by looking at the work of others is somehow stealing, exploiting, abusing the work of others is just plain nonsense. |
| " | Inafox wrote: | ||
There's a difference between publicly available and public domain. Public availability of art is under the rights of worker exposure, while public domain is posthumous ex-copyright and de-copyrighted works. "these models do not stitch together or combine various artworks to make the image" yes they do, they use restorative diffusion which breaks a composition, denoises it "restoring" the image using feature maps, taken and broken down from the most difficult elements of artistic images. AIs are not sapient or blackboxes when perceived in physicalist terms, wherein they are entirely derivative of image data, interpolation and estimation. I advise you read some scientific papers instead of anthropomorphising estimative restorative algorithms. |
|
LustPuppet |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| By the way, I find it amusing that some people are interested in using ML-generated art for inspiration, while other people claim such art is empty and soulless. 😆 |
| " | Cuddleboy19 wrote: |
| Oh, NOW they decide to crack down on the art-bots! |
| " | losira wrote: |
|
I can tell the person who wrote this has zero clue what they are talking about. "The image must not have been generated using prompts that include the name of a living or recently deceased (within the last 25 years) artist. Well this includes literally all furry art. So I fine tune my model with their art as training data, but I just can't use them in the prompt? You realize you can still use the artists data even if they aren't in the prompt right? These are some completely nonsensical rules. Please educate yourself or just ban it outright. |
| " | ThePhantomMeanie wrote: |
|
AI art is nothing more than high-tech tracing. Ban it and good riddance |
| " | For that rules like don't upload AI to ink bunny and I will not share my ai arts to Ink bunny I don't want to everyone see my prompts. |
| " | Showing prompts and every detail give (so everyone need to give up their style make it public) and generated ai and midjorney and novel banned. |
| " | or people move to other sites. |
| " | Also Ink bunny allow them to burry by other arts with that rules. Other web site only ask is this AI yes or no. Done. Example Pixiv or Devianart. |
| " | And for people still complaining about AI. Wake up there is no turning back everyone moving to AI. |
| " | Like it or not. It will become more more more better every seconds |
| " | Also it makes no one can do things and god like speed. |
| " | You can do what you do but AI changed things forever like it or not genie out of the bottle no one can't do anything about it. |
| " | Even Lets say you ban it here it will always be out there and it will still effect you. You just bury your head in the sand. And blocking consumer to see more products. |
| " | Suggestion adapt instead of complaining. Even its effect real jobs and make people jobless. |
| " | Yes its sad but there is no one can do anything about it because genie out of the bottle remember this complaining can't do anything adapt. |
| " | my drawing results are amazing |
| " | Its not coprigtable mean its not art. |
| " | And look at Nvidia stock did you see anything like it even crpyto things never close to that. And lots AI papers release in secs |
| " | For me its better than lots of things and it my own style of want because of my promps showing my soul in them. |
| " | Art is art like or not. Somepeople deny still not change fact. Consumers takes it as art. Even AI destroy humans in art contents prove its better art. |
| " | Your saying or others saying won't change AI revulation on all sectors and real life aplications. This is not crypto or NFT this thing can do what can you do in so fast and bigger amounts. And its evolve so fast every day getting so better and learning more faster with new Nvidia cards. |
| " | And like humans do AI need to be train on what humans train on... |
| " | In future money open doors all AI patents. You will see just wait. World is about change soon. |
| " | People trying to block AI afraid of AI replace of them. And sad reality is yes it will. |
|
| " |
You don't need accept but it will forcely accepted in future. Genie out of the bottle trying to stop only burry your hand in sand. Lots of AI protesters now using AI. Because people understand how it usefull and less eford need to make samethings. |
| " | Bold of you to assume AI artists don't have a creation process or vision that they apply and enjoy! I spend as much time on my pieces as any traditional artists, and very little of that time is spent 'generating'. |
| " | Your entire argument boils down to protectionism and creating a wall around art skills so they are only acquired in the way YOU deem acceptable. |
| " | Do you not understand how your statements are not just wrong but deeply ignorant? |
| " | I am an AI artist. I care about my process AND results, and my process is enjoyable even if it's different from yours. |
| " | There are plenty of "horse tracks". E621 is one of those. They don't allow AI Art... so why do you want to attack it on the ONE place that does other than bigotry, the same thing that keeps pretty much all CUB art siloed between here and E621? |
| " | The AI Bros--they're always straight men. |
| " | What is a cause for concern is when the signature starts to spell out an artist name and the overall style of the image matches that artist's style. |
| " | It's pretty clear that the mods don't know what to do in these cases as the tickets I've created for them seem to be in an indefinite limbo. Kadm has mentioned bringing in low-level staff to do prompt testing, but at this moment, I doubt that is ever going to happen, especially if the simple infractions (not stating prompt, not stating model, etc) are already too much of an administrative burden. |
| " | Stuff like easily-provable prompt falsification (the only type of prompt-falsification that the mods currently take action on) is much less common, |
| " | It could be a box where you paste in the prompt text |
| " | Dedicated fields for generation information should have been the bare minimum for Inkbunny to properly support AI content with its current set of rules. Sadly, developmental resources are even more scarce than moderation resources here. |
| " | Believe me, there is resentment among the staff for having rolled out AI support in the way that they did. They know that it's shaped up to be a perpetual source of issues. |
| " |
2.8 Content Lacking Artistic Merit Content lacking artistic merit is not permitted on FA, and includes such items as: -- Submissions created through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or similar image generators. -- Photography focusing on body parts without creative content. -- Placeholder content with empty documents or blank submissions. -- Text-only imagery. -- Content modified to be generally unviewable through use of filters, blurring, or censorship. Content created by artificial intelligence is not allowed on Fur Affinity. AI and machine learning applications (DALL-E, Craiyon) sample other artists' work to create content. That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images. Our goal is to support artists and their content. We don’t believe it’s in our community’s best interests to allow AI generated content on the site. Help keep FA independent and fund site updates! Support coding development by subscribing to FA+ (and get some pretty spiffy perks in the process!). |
| " |
New FA Privacy Settings To help, we’ve updated the site with new tools to help give users a bit of peace of mind. Found under Site Settings, you can find new privacy options to block new accounts under the following areas: -- Block submission comments -- Block journal comments -- Limit shouts -- Limit notes New accounts are designated on Fur Affinity by the presence of a green leaf to signify their freshness. Note: These tools should be used responsibly. While they have the power to block harmful users, they also have the ability to alienate legitimate users who simply want to interact with your work and can potentially turn away new fans and buyers. |
|
Inafox |
| " | Jeez, even with a ban, how to enforce it? |
| " | Drawing sucks and if it can be done faster. |
| " | so I play play games or do something other than sit in front of a screen |
| " | They see it as theft, but that doesn't mean that it is theft. Were people contacted directly and asked if their art could be used in these training models? No. Did they HAVE to be? Also no. These models were trained using web scraping utilities, which is a legal and protected activity. Anything residing on a publicly accessible domain is up for grabs in web scraping and data collection. |
| " | The way copyrights work for art is that you can only copyright individual art works, you can't copyright styles or genres of art. It would only be considered stealing if the full photo is taken and stored by these models, but it is not. There is no data stores that contain people's photos and just "Frankenstein" the photos together, because these data stores would be WAY to big to effectively use. |
| " | It then creates a transitive copy of the photo it scanned to check that it has the correct conceptualizations of the piece, and then deletes the photo. Creating transitive copies are protected by fair use doctrine of copyright law. |
| " | Transformative pieces are also covered by fair use doctrine as well. Because photos generated from AI are based on the data points of it's training and not individual photos, there is not even a significant amount of data that could go into a single generation piece from another manual generation piece that would constitute enough of a percentage of the original piece to be considered infringement. |
| " | It's for all these reasons and more that the lawsuits are thrown out one after another, because despite people's frustration, there's not enough legal precedent to hold any grounds. |
| " | Art is put on the web in order to be seen by people. That has always been the primary reason anyone uploads art to the internet. All of this was done in the past, before AI existed and before anyone had any idea that their style could be ripped off by a computer program and reused. Since AI is so new, the law doesn't say anything about it yet either, therefore what you say about AI web scrapping for training purposes being legal is irrelevant. Laws change because shit like this is what angers many people. |
| " | Oh really? Well I must be hallucinating because I can clearly see Zackary911's signature in the corner of a LOT of these AI generated pictures by someone called epicurusfox. What a funny conincidence that signature was put there. |
| " | Until the law is updated to finally make it illegal. |
| " | And surely Zackary911's art wasn't used to generate this picture at all. What you're talking about is what you wish happened. When it comes to people actually using Stable Diffusion for themselves, they don't give a shit. |
| " |
And yet, there's new lawsuits still being filed: Google sued by US artists over AI image generator AI Companies Take Hit as Judge Says Artists Have ‘Public Interest’ In Pursuing Lawsuits Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work |
| " | Again, you can't copyright a style. |
| " | It'd be like getting angry cause you write jazz and someone else wrote jazz. |
| " | Also, even before AI art, people have created likenesses and copies to steal from other artists, nothing is new there. |
| " | What I say is not irrelevant because issues of web scraping have already gone to court and they have already made rulings on it being a protected activity. |
| " | All a computer does is go to different sights to "see" art just as you or I could. It then studies these art pieces and makes notes about it, just as you or I could. It only does this WAAAYYY faster than you or I could. Nothing is different there. |
| " | To the model, it's simply another object, like a ball or a tree. This is ONLY relevant when you reference a singular artist and this specific situation is only relevant to some of the earlier furry only models that were trained with artist names. |
| " | Someone more knowledgeable and skilled would use a list of complimentary artist names with an older model like that, because it would combine styles into a unified new style by taking stylistic conceptualizations equally from all artists and increase the data set. |
| " | So what if it was? For the millionth time, you can't copyright styles. Even still, the style may be heavily influenced by Z911, but the concept of Renamon or it's cookie in this picture comes from a MASSIVE data set comparing all these items and concepts. The ONLY thing you can copyright, that can be STOLEN are individual photos, and transformative content pieces, DESPITE being similar in style, are not stolen. What you're talking about is what you wish happened. |
| " | And yet none of them ever win... |
| " | But you can copyright the images being compressed into the training data / model. |
| " | No it's not. It's like if someone else programed a robot to write jazz for them. |
| " | Wrong. That's people copying from people. "AI" is a computer program copying from people. |
| " | What is new is now what's being scraped enables anyone with this AI program to spit out thousands of images and pass them off as if they were real art. I've seen lots of prompters over on PIXIV that have setup fanbox accounts, charging money for their AI junk. I think a court would have issue with that. |
| " | Wrong. The way an AI is trained, it doesn't "make notes about it", it generates noise and compares it to training data over and over. A human artist doesn't work like this. Back in the Renaissance they did master studies, anatomy studies, lancscapes, and nude models. The way Stable Diffusion works is not the way a human artist works. That's BS. |
| " |
You're really just gonna shrug that off like it doesn't matter? Chunie in the lower left here - Original signature for comparison Hioshiru in the lower right here - Original signature for comparison Lichfang's logo here - Original signature for comparison These artists work hard at their craft. Now, it's just boiled down to AI training fodder. |
| " | Now you're repeating me? So now stealing is okay because all of the training data's already been stolen and used. I see. So if there was a riot in your city and people started breaking the glass in shop windows and stealing everything inside, then it's okay because everybody's doing it. |
| " | Time will tell. It's still going on. |
| " | Yeah, already touched on this. If you actually read or checked out the link I sent before, the training models don't save the actual photo. At best, it creates a transitive copy (legal for Fair Use) in the training process and then deletes it. NOTHING illegal about it. |
| " | So what? You can't gatekeeps styles like that. Get angry all you want. |
| " | SO. WHAT. It's still the same action, except AI isn't actually "copying." |
| " | Again, so what? Don't like it? Don't buy it. Vote with your dollar. Think it's "stolen" art? Show me a single example of a fanbox that is directly mimicking a single artist's style. Even if you do find one, copyright only extends to individual works of art. |
| " | It's not BS. It creates analytical data points of statistical probability, starts with a layer of noise, and filters out that noise to the most likely outcome based on the input. It's the "analytical data points" that's the same, the rest is just how the computer creates images. |
| " | Yeah, because it DOESN'T matter. Can't copyright a style, artistic names in prompts like this are ONLY limited to rare cases like E621 trained models, and lazy AI artists only use one artistic style without trying to combine to create their own. Even still, many traditional artists make fan art in the style of or with characters that other artists use. Same applies here. |
| " | AI art generation is simply a tool, nothing more. Yes, you do outsource much of the investment work required to be a traditional artist, but these pieces do not magically generate themselves. It's the person that came up with the idea, the scene, the characters, or the scenario to create these pieces. They must know the tools, how to interact with them, how they're trained, or how to engineer their prompts correctly. |
| " | They would not exist without these efforts. |
| " | Good AI artists will try multiple prompt iterations to get exactly the depiction they were visualizing |
| " | To say that it requires no skill is just an ignorant lie that people tell themselves. What it simply doesn't require that traditional art does, is time investment. |
| " | There are crappy, low effort artists everywhere, despite the medium. There are plagiarists and thieves everywhere, despite the medium. It's just a tool to for art, it's just exponentially more accessible to everyone and doesn't require the MASSIVE amount of training, time, money, or resource investment. |
| " |
A tool is something to help you do work. A hammer helps you nail boards together to build a house. But telling a team of people to build a house for you while you just sit there and hope for the best? That's NOT a tool. That's a bunch of people doing the work for you. In the same way, you're sitting at your desk waiting for the AI program to make the pic for you. It's funny, the language you use to dress up using a web GUI for stable diffusion and similar programs: tools = program interact = use how they're trained = images they use how to engineer their prompts correctly = how to type up a prompt |
| " | And data sets wouldn't exist without millions of artists unwittingly uploading all their images to the internet for decades, along with inkbunny and e621 providing keywords / tags for the AI to associate with each image and "learn" from it. |
| " | Sounds more like rolling the dice and hoping the AI gets close. |
| " | You come up with an idea and all it's content, and the AI helps you to realize that. Tools also aren't autonomous, they require user direction and intervention. AI art generators only do what the user tells them, and it's the user that comes dreams up the idea |
| " | Your same complaints were used against people who use Photoshop when it came out because traditional artists were pissed that a computer mimicking different brush strokes was cheating. It's irrelevant how you complain about my language. |
| " | Anyone and everyone could have done the exact same effort of studying all these artists and all these tags to gain knowledge and understanding. |
| " |
According to Giansiracusa, the key difference between humans and LLMs is that bots require a ton of training data to recognize patterns, which they do via interpolation. Humans, on the other hand, can extrapolate information from a very small amount of new data. He gave the example of a baby who quickly learns about gravity and its parents’ emotional states by dropping food on the floor. Bots, on the other hand, are good at imitating the style of something they’ve been trained on (ex: a writer’s work) because they see the patterns but not the deeper meanings behind them. |
| " | The AI is not reading the user's mind. A tool is something that helps make work easier for the use. The amount of effort you put in is more than what the tool puts out. |
| " | I imagine so. But digital art stayed around because there's still a human doing the drawing and painting. Words can emphasize or blur the meaning of things, make them seem higher or lower than what they are. I write AutoHotKey scripts as a hobby and I have played with the web GUI of stable diffusion to see how it works. Engineer seemed like a rather lofty word to use for what's basically scripting. |
| " |
Uh..no : Stable Diffusion and Imagen Can Reproduce Training Data Almost Perfectly. The way a human learns to draw and paint is not the same thing that the AI program is doing. AI Lie: Machines Don’t Learn Like Humans (And Don’t Have the Right To) |
| " | No, it doesn't read the user's mind. That's actually a great means to prove my point though. You, the user, the HUMAN, have to dictate to the machine what needs to be generated and created. The human comes up with the idea, and the machine works with that direction to make that idea tangible. It's just like the other millions of uses computers have, to relay ideas as quick and effectively as possible. |
| " | Computers are a tool create websites like this, where countless layers of abstraction work so that you only have to put in a minimal amount of direction to the system, and the system will create a tangible version of your idea and quickly. Now we simply have the ability to do that with art. |
| " | More arguing semantics. That's just what it's called, 'prompt engineering,' because the definition of 'engineer' is to build or design something, in this case a prompt that effectively and efficiently creates the outcome your looking for based on it's training data. It may not fit YOUR idea of what 'engineer' means, but it still fits in line with the ACTUAL definitions of words. |
| " | Without knowing EXACTLY what or how that model was trained on to make that example, you can't really use it as a reliable means to accurately prove that point. |
| " | Yeah, because we've already had a lifetime of schooling and experiences to pull relational observations from in order to have the capacity to extrapolate data. That's like saying you already have training data on a larger model to train a Lora. No difference there. |
| " | Humans do the same thing every time they learn something new. A child learning piano at the age of 6 has no care, concept, or concern for the "deeper meanings" of music. They simply learn and imitate other artist's music for YEARS, up to a decade even, before they learn how to compose pieces themselves. No difference there. |
| " | Every artist, musician, dancer, painter, sculptor, athlete, or whatever ALL stand on the shoulders of giants. This is simply how human progression works. It's why all of these art forms have become more and more refined and high caliber over the years, because EVERYONE pulls influence from innovators that have come before them, NOTHING has changed. |
| " | You can make a short "grey cat wearing a tuxedo" prompt and hope that you get what you want, or you can write "grey cat, tuxedo, monocle, top hat, cane, ballroom, bowing, crowd of cats, elegant setting, cinematic lighting, cats looking on in awe" and get significantly more of what you're wanting. But again, crappy and lazy artists exist with traditional tools too. |
| " | Maybe you want the scene exactly as it is but want it to appear as an oil painting. It takes skill, research, and experience to know the limitations of the tools you're using to get the desired outcome you want. You think that just because some people are bad at it, that EVERYONE is bad at it. What a horrible way to view art. |
| " |
"artist:0r0ch1": 179, "artist:blotch": 238, "artist:chunie": 653, "artist:doxy": 234, "artist:zackary911": 300, "artist:zaush": 281, |
| " | Yeah, people do get inspired by other humans to try and do their best at their craft. That bar is always within reach. Well...until you get a machine that can study every artist, musician, dancer, painter, sculptor, and athlete and replicate everything they do. Then you just have a person without any of those skills relying a machine to do it for them versus the group of humans that did all of it themselves. Humans make art, they dance and sing, and perform. Now a lot has changed. Articles around the web, videos on youtube, artwork here and used out in the world by businesses. |
| " | Yeah, then all you have to do is find a LORA trained on better artists work. All of a sudden the quality changes. Then you just copy paste a prompt somebody else wrote, tweak it a lil bit.....then you can become delusional about being an artist. Oh sorry, I mean an engineer. |
| " | Maybe you just haven't ripped off the right artist yet. Here's a model containing "19 epochs of 450,000 images each" and "Trained with 5,356 tags". What's in those tags? Artist names! Shocker... |
| " | That time that people spend drawing or painting is actually enjoyable. It's a kind of positive hyper focus called flow. I'm sure it requires some kind of skills to type up some text and check a few boxes for AI, but it will never be the same skills that making art requires. |
| " | That's the thing. The more people turn to machines to make their life easier, the worse and more inhumane life gets for everyone. I already have to think about every article I read online, wondering if it's some AI garage or if a human actually wrote it. People are using AI to fake people's voices to scam over the phone or make music. Lowering the bar to do this kind of shit and giving it to everybody? Great job AI companies, you just made the world a lot worse. |
| " | ...you can make small scale edits with inpainting to fix defects of generation, you can take the photo to Photoshop or Krita to make manual edits to fix certain mistakes, you can make multiple variant versions and blend the best qualities of each to get a high quality end result, you can add post processing effects, color balancing, contrast and brightness fixes, focus and sharpening, or film grain, and that's only for ONE idea. |
| " | The only difference for AI being is that you can do this extensive process for several photos a day, as opposed to a traditional artist of average skill doing a single photo over the course of several days or a week. The time I spend making AI art is ACTUALLY enjoyable and I admire the level of quality I'm left with when I'm done. |
| " | I now have accessibility to art where I didn't before, because I don't have the inherent natural talent for drawing or painting, no matter how much I've tried to hone it, |
| " | but all I ever hear is people like you saying "You're not allowed to enjoy creating art this way, you're a horrible person for doing so |
| " |
The way people learn to draw is the same way AI works. Drawing is a waste of time. AI is conscious. AI should have "rights". |
| " | and you should only enjoy creating art the way I think you should" and all I do is create for fun, not to make a living and not to take money out of anyone's pocket and I'm still treated like a villain. |
| " | The joy of fixing the machine's mistakes. Photoshop can do a lot, but at that point it's more like re-touching a photo than making art. |
| " | I bet you do. It was made from ripped off human art in the first place. |
| " | Yeah, all the art's been conveniently wrapped and put into a training data for you already. Don't bother yourself with actually being creative. If you have two hands and a brain and can see, then you have accessibility to art. It's a skill you learn by looking, studying, drawing, and painting. I was really bad at drawing when I was a kid, but over time I got better through practice. I took classes for drawing and painting at college, Art class in school was always my favorite. Yes, I had some people say "hey you're pretty good at that" and got the idea that I had talent. But the truth is, if you don't practice regularly, it gets hard and harder to do it again. It took a lot of work. I watch a lot of cartoons and collect hundreds of reference images to study so that I can learn to draw the characters. When you're learning, forget about talent. You focus on the basic fundamentals and form your understanding. |
| " | Honestly, I probably wouldn't care as much as I do now if Inkbunny had just made another site for AI instead of lumping all of it together here with all the artists. Out of sight out of mind. You can do whatever on your computer, I'm not trying to stop you. It's just treating AI like it's the same as all other human made art is plain wrong. The way people under-handedly trained it and the way it's being used out in the world is wrong. Sure you may not make a dime from it, but I've seen AI prompters 'taking requests'. Do images they make cost them many hours of time? No. They can just start up stable diffusion and have something in 60 seconds. Who needs a commission when you can just request some free art? |
| " | Did cars make it harder for people to walk? Did heaters make it harder for people to build fires? Did calculators make it harder for people to do math? The whole PURPOSE of all human technology is to make complex tasks EASIER. To live your life in fear of new technology is ridiculous. EVERY SINGLE issue you have with AI is NO different than any issue that existed before AI. Shitty people are going to do shitty things, the tools to do it don't matter, they'll find a way. |
| " | But if you take a single moment and view things outside of such a negative and biased lens, you'll see people experiencing the joy of art and creation for the first time in the whole lives. People who don't have the access to the funds, talent, inherent skill, resources, time, or tools needed for traditional art can now create. Who cares if it's low effort? So is abstract art, but you don't go out of your way to hate and discourage them. |
| " | You and so many people like you go to great lengths to go out of your way to crush the spirits of budding artists and exclude their creations from every possible outlet of expression, just because you have such a hatred and bias of the medium, yet accuse everyone else using the technology of destroying the value of art? |
| " | AI isn't like a car, a heater, or a calculator. That analogy is making this problem seem smaller than it actually is. It's generating whole blocks of text and images. There's a difference between "making something easier" and "completely replacing a person". Using a stylus with krita or photoshop makes painting easier - but you still have to paint it yourself. AI is not helping you - it's doing all the drawing and painting for you. AKA, it's replacing you. That's not a tool, it's a substitute for doing things yourself, or anyone else. |
| " | The joy of art is in the doing of it. This is over an hour or more of drawing and painting. All that AI is doing is giving you a little shot of dopamine after it's 60 seconds of rendering. Woo hoo, it spit out a new image. The poor, crippled, blind, paraplegic orphan boy is a nice poster child for the AI Bro movement. The same computer used for AI can also be used for making art with a tablet. Youtube has tons of videos about how to draw and paint. You aren't creating with an AI. It's close to no effort at all. I don't go out of my way to discourage abstract artists because I've made abstract art myself, it's enjoyable. Also, abstract artists aren't ripping off other artists styles like AI does and then placing their art right next to them in the same gallery - that would be equal to what's happening here. I discourage things I think are wrong. AI needs it's own site. |
| " | You're an artist now? I thought you were calling yourself a "prompt engineer"? If you were actually trying to make art, then I'd totally be supportive. But you're leaning heavily on a program to do it all for you and thinking yourself an artist? I'm sorry but I don't see things that way. Too little effort in for what that program does for you. I'm trying to exclude "their creations from every outlet of expression" now? No, just use another website for AI, I'd be fine with that. Yes, the technology does destroy the value of art. What if (for example) a company released plans for a machine that could build you a free car? Right off the bat, it would hurt the whole industry. Same thing with houses, clothes, music, pretty much anything that's able to be made at home for free. |
| " | More semantics.... but yes, I am an artist, and also a prompt engineer, by definition, as I explained several times in other comments. |
| " | I am actually trying to make art, and if you actually valued the spirit of artistic creation, then you'd actually be supportive. |
| " | "Too little effort in for what that program does for you." - This is just artistic gatekeeping again. You define art based on the amount of time or effort that's put into it, and not the works created, and then you withhold your appreciation or "seal of approval" simply because it.... didn't take long enough? Wasn't "hard" enough for me to create? |
| " | "I'm trying to exclude "their creations from every outlet of expression" now? No, just use another website for AI, I'd be fine with that." - Saying this, and then following with a basic "Take your shit and go away to where I don't have see it and I'd be fine with that" doesn't exactly sell your case as to not being strictly exclusive or dismissive towards AI art. |
| " | "What if (for example) a company released plans for a machine that could build you a free car? Right off the bat, it would hurt the whole industry." - But is this not why our capitalistic economy kinda sucks and is hard to live in right now? How hard did people have to fight for the "right to repair?" Saying "you can't just buy a new screen or battery for your phone if it goes bad, you have to buy a new phone! You not buying a new phone hurts our industry!" is INCREDIBLY selfish and self serving, when a new phone is like $1,200 bucks and a new screen and battery would be like $200. Competition drives prices down, yes, it's why internet service in Europe is cheaper or higher quality than in the US. Here, we have only have maybe 3 or 4 choices and they have numerous providers. |
| " | That's what's happening with art now. You can get higher quality pieces for little to no investment and it's more accessible to everyone. Does that mean that there's no longer any demand for traditional art? No. It just means that you have to provide better quality or value than the competition in order to stay relevant. |
| " | Sponch is currently falsifying the prompts in their uploads. Initially they had an array of artist name keywords. In fact, I reported Sponch's use of artist names about twenty minutes after they started uploading their AI images to Inkbunny. The ticket still hasn't been dealt with yet because there's a giant backlog of tickets and barely anyone actively working on them. |
| " | The vast majority of these people are the equivalent of little kids playing with crayons for the first time, never having made anything before. These people haven't had the ability and training for things like lighting, shadows, perspective, or attention to detail, and instead of in any way encouraging new artists in a highly accessible medium, you just spread hate and exclusion with uneducated bias and ignorance about how these technologies actually work. |
| " | These technologies are new, the people using them are new to these art forms, and the average person has no concept of quality when it comes to generation, but you're judging the medium based on the worst possible examples of it's potential use and giving NO space for it's positive potential. You’ve given no space for new artists to use these new tools and grow, perhaps even learn to appreciate and try traditional mediums after the gaining the joy and love of creation first, before you’ve made an effort to tear them all down. You've made up your mind before you even understand the whole picture or considered both sides. It's ignorance at it's finest. |
| " | If you and other AI bros were actually trying to be an artist, like making an effort, then it would be different. But it's not like that. All I see is people using models trained on other artists' work. Even if it wasn't trained on another's work, it's still lazy. Disregarding that, the bias against art and artists from AI bros makes me feel sick. |
| " |
"The medium", you mean the web UI you type your prompt into? The web in general? Or the computer monitor itself? Calling it a medium just like artists do to a canvas doesn't mean you're making art. It would be gate-keeping if AI was an actual person , but it's not, it's an amoral program spitting out whatever you tell it to. Actual artists - people that draw and paint pictures, do not like their work sitting next these things, period, nor having their work used as training fodder. Maybe you should pick up a pencil or a brush and try to create first. You know, by expressing yourself and how you feel. A program can't replace that for you. Art always comes from inside you, and through your own effort, onto the medium you've chosen. An AI using a model / LORA / data set is not even close to a brush. Typing text into a prompt is not a canvas. If you want to experience the joys of creativity, then try the real deal. If you want to "stand on the shoulders of giants", then do as they do, use actual tools, study references, take a class etc. You've gotten hate from artists, I've gotten hate from AI bros. Yeah, the arguing gets old, but art is a human thing - machines shouldn't take that away, or steal styles. |
