Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

A thought on AI art...

by

I understand why a lot of artists don't like AI art generators (#1 being "MY MONEY!!!" and #2 being "IT STEALS PEOPLE'S ARTWORK WITHOUT GIVING THEM CREDIT!" and #3 "IF ANY ONE CAN MAKE ART WITH AI, I'M NOT SPECIAL OR TALENTED ANY MORE." in that order) but here's some thing that just occurred to me:

I have an established character and lots of artwork of him including a reference sheet. If I commission an artist to do a picture of him, they ask for reference materials and use those to draw from. Which is exactly what AI is doing. I have never seen a single artist in my life post a picture they've drawn of my character and credit the artist who did the reference sheet of me despite using that artist's artwork in the commission they charged me money for, thus making money off that first artist's work; which is what all of the artists complain about AI doing.

Thoughts?

Viewed:	121 times
Added:	1 month, 2 weeks ago 22 Feb 2025 03:27 CET

20 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

torchlight

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Yeah, every complaint I have ever heard about AI, already existed as just part of the industry.
It's basically just fear of becoming irrelevant. Same thing happens at every advance in art. Back when people started drawing digitally, they were also condemned as "not real artists".

esanhusky

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I've seen these points brought up before, and the answer is that generally, the AI literally copies pieces of several artists' drawings, and does little more than smooth out the seams when it's done virtually copy/pasting, and I really don't know enough about how it's done to support either side of that argument, where a human artist is looking at one picture, and drawing their interpretation of the character portrayed in that picture, creating their own lineart from scratch and making an entirely different picture.

So I guess TLDR: AI is just a really fancy tracer, and artists never did like tracers

Zagroseckt

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ esanhusky

Way early atempts Pre genitive kind of worked that way.
Dollie and such.

the modern ones go off curves methods of joining predictive math and probably a ton of mesurements.
Get enough of them in one modle and you effectivly elemenate "Copying"

Realy with todays method the problem is more along the lines of not easily reproducing someones face
The modles made by comirsial entites tend to run a genetive pattern search and using the ai's output edit the waits and bioses to make it more likely genorate a set of safe faces/body.

you can do this with logos trademarks as well or kill a style.

The problem is if you do this to much the nurel network behind the modle can brake down since alot of modern modles can create pretymuch any object or person if you describe it well enough.
as long as it has some idea of what your describing via analigy or direct extream detailed descriptions.

But ya if you never show an AI art deco and ask it for art deco it's not going to know what your talking about.
But if you describe it.. you'll get it. as long as it's seen things that could be art deco if only it didnt have that (insert detail here)

Weiss

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I tend to just tune out most of the complaints as they are all starting to get very same-y. Like, I understand the fears but most of them seem...exaggerated. I just wish more artist would take interest in AI and make their own LoRa like Cobalt did

Netreek

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

The problem I see with AI is, that sooner or later it is possible to make movies only with AI. We allready have an AI movie. AI images, AI voices, aso. Of course it is not good. There are alot of errors in it. Still, like with CGI it will not take long till it becomes close to the original. Look at some movies. You have to zoom sometimes to see that a certain scene is CGI. Only with the most unrealistic scenes you know it is CGI. But the more realistic it gets, the harder it is to see. So making a marvel movie only with CGI is possible. Actors allready have been in those very roles. I would even believe that a gollumn in todays time is possible to make in a way that he looks like a real person who has just been under the mask for several hours.

Killjoy

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Netreek

You forgot we have AI posting to twitter and other chat progs to parrot topics and talking points and AI leaving comments in reply to what other AI posted.

Netreek

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Killjoy

It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

Makroth

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

AI is samey soulless automated downright dystopian garbage. The fact that some of it is fap-worthy does not change that.

Killjoy

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Makroth

The same could be said for modern art and that's still done by humans. How much talent and soul does it take to duct tape a banana to a blank canvas and call it art?

DanielBunny

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Killjoy

To be fair, bananas look very much like erections

Zagroseckt

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ DanielBunny

Oh the censored base models .. LOL yyya

AI knows what a dick should kind of look like and finds faint referinces to bananas and guess what. since all the proper referince math was deleted you get ... Bananna dicks :) and frute balls. poor thing tries so hard to give you what you ask for.

Train in just a bit... a smidgen a smackeral of the actuial thing and alll those little croslinked referinces all align and sudently with just only seeing 2 or 3 examples.... you get ... DICK-O-ROMA!!! 1000's of vereations all decently renderd for your viewing enjoyment.

Makroth

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Owner

@ Killjoy

It absoluttly cannot be said. Also, that taped banana has far more value than any piece of AI "art". The art of the crappiest artists on this platform is worth more. I will fully embrace AI works and remove the elipses the minute AI becomes self-aware.

DanielBunny

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

A lot of the arguments I hear about AI seem to me they would be better directed at the corporate world, as their theft and layoffs are a LOT more brazen than anything we'll see here.

I do get the concern about the front page, but I've yet to see a tangible loss on that front. I mean just as a commissioner, I'm getting the same views, new watches, faves from non-watchers, I haven't seen a drop in anything. That's not to say it won't have a detrimental effect in the future, and that's worth discussing, possibly preventing, but I'm not seeing it right now, and I still believe interest in AI art will wane more over time, and the front page space they take up will shrink.

Another argument is that AI will replace commissions. I strongly disagree with this one simply because an AI does not have the intuitiveness to "read between the lines" when someone gives a bare description.. or even a detailed one as I tend to give. AI just can't replace that intuitiveness no matter how advanced it gets.

More importantly though, if AI is killing commission work, then why is it more difficult today to find artists willing to do commissions than ever before? (I say this as there DOES seem to be a bit of an uptick lately, but when AI was at the peak of its popularity, commission work was often nowhere to be found. There doesn't seem to be a correlation at all from my perspective.) You would think if there was less demand for commissions that we would be absolutely FLOODED with artists willing to do commission work, but that's just not the case. So many are turning to paywalls and many people, myself included, just aren't going to do YET ANOTHER of the INSANE quantity of subscription services just to see more art, particularly as those services keep shaving away at what content is allowed to be sold there, making the majority of art on them bland and uninteresting. I'd be interested to know how that practice might have contributed to the interest in getting more art from AI, as so much more and more art is just locked away forever, seen by only a select few.

Arkanos

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

"It's how humans do it, too"

Except not really. Your artist isn't sampling and recreating from that reference, they're doing their own genuine labor of their own and the reference is used to understand the look of the character.

The labor is different

And AI art is corporations stealing from people.

AxleFurret

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

So, being a "realist" here... The cat is out of the bag, the can of worms has been opened, and it's not going away.

I heard a lot of the same stuff back when "Digital Art Tools" and "Programs" became popular back when photoshop was the "new thing"... Now a lot of those same people that were screaming about photoshop and digital art tablets "HAVING NO SOUL!" and "NOT REAL ART!" now can't live without the very art tablets and digital art "tools" they once screamed about.

Machine-learning "A.I." art "tools" will be the same, eventually good artists will use it to be better or create faster, and people that couldn't do art will have a way to express themselves and their ideas easier.

A lot of people are just scared they may have to get a "regular job", many of those will likely also get replaced by machine learning.

The corporations will not stop trying to make "all the money", so start getting politically active and push for laws that punish the use of robots and A.I. to replace humans, and good luck with that.

But again, being a realist, Luddite movements NEVER work for long.

And ultimately, machine learning isn't going to force people to stop doing "traditional" art for commissions or as a hobby.

kst3xh

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

well said I'd say. this pretty much sums things up well, something you tend to do well and often

miw

1 month ago

link

you're not an artist. your opinion on the subject are irrelevant, kiddo.

Killjoy

1 month ago

link

@ miw

Like not having a womb means I can't have an opinion on abortion? I use to draw stuff and post it so I'm as much an "artist" as any one else, I just don't charge people money to do it or make a living off it. If the only way to be an "ARTIST" is to tie my livelihood to it then I'd pass so I'm not yet another furry "ARTIST" you see begging for emergency commission (despite have a long list already) because rent came due YET AGAIN or starting a go-fund-me page because my cat got sick and I'm too poor or hiding my art behind a paywall. I mean, if that's the sort of requirement then any artist who's not a popular artist isn't an artist which I'm sure a lot of popular artists would agree as they stick their nose up in the air looking down on their 'lessers'. I've been a licensed security guard for years and you don't hear me whining about automated security systems and robots (yes, they have them) "They took our jobs" like artists seem to be whining about AI.

miw

1 month ago

link

@ Killjoy

>wall of text
shut up and draw

fyrdrgon

1 month ago

link

@ miw

kiddo? lol.
this coming from someone who draws MLP stuff, you copy someone else art, char and intellectual property.
your not a artist, just a copy cat.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.