Poll of the Day > Ai art looks better than "real" art

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not arguing that the person who "creates" it is an artist. I mean...I don't think they are...at all

But that said...it looks better than "real" art and so when I have to choose to look at something ai vs real...it'll be the thing that looks better. That is fair, right?

the problem with AI art (beyond the obvious moral and legal questions, as well as the dumb little mistakes it makes) is that it often looks way too uniform. I know it's a very vague complaint but it really does look soulless, once you've looked at enough

some of it can. i will never support it over a real artist, though.

hands still get fucked up a lot too.

Nade_Duck posted...

some of it can. i will never support it over a real artist, though.

hands still get fucked up a lot too.

What if an artist trains an AI using only their own work to make something?

agesboy posted...

the problem with AI art (beyond the obvious moral and legal questions, as well as the dumb little mistakes it makes) is that it often looks way too uniform. I know it's a very vague complaint but it really does look soulless, once you've looked at enough

Ask it to generate it in a different style then. I was able to generate fairly realistic oil painting of a harbor by asking for it to be textured with a palette knife.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7558f026.jpg

AI art looks terrible. Its too uniform, too strange looking, you look closer and the details are all wrong.

Typically what I see is bad AI art, not someone taking time to specify perspective, scenes, color palates, styles, and everything that makes one artist actually stand out from another.

AI art looks really bad if you know what to look for, and at that point it's just shameful that you thought you could get away with it.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a2bd8a42.jpg

Why is this boat so small?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/ab32bdfb.jpg

Why is this boat empty?

The thing that bothers me the most is that people actually appreciate it or think it has any deeper meaning. It's a cool tech demo, it's not art. You're not an artist for clicking a button. lol.

Now every time I see a nice painting I have to automatically assume it was some sweaty tech bro that generated it.

Yellow posted...

it's just shameful that you thought you could get away with it.

I was showing that AI art can do more than the awful generic AI art that's being plastered on every shitty mobile game. I was fairly clear about that.

Yellow posted...

Why is this boat so small?

I thought it was a bucket personally, but I could see a boat.

Yellow posted...

Why is this boat empty?

???

shadowsword87 posted...

Ask it to generate it in a different style then. I was able to generate fairly realistic oil painting of a harbor by asking for it to be textured with a palette knife.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7558f026.jpg

Real oil painter here. The texture in the background is far too thick and varied in the background and the foreground objects are relatively flat and uniform--the opposite of how it should be and how the eye perceives reality. Also the anatomy of the ships and their relative size is complete nonsense. If you think it looks good it's because you know nothing about art, composition, style, and/or you haven't really looked at it for very long. Same problem with all AI art.

People just need to tell the AI to generate art that doesn't look like it's been generated by an AI

the issue is that you only ever see the bad stuff, or the stuff that's available for you to use for free

the good shit?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I1of9yqoy0I

the good shit is terrifyingly good

https://i.imgur.com/a7hI8zX.jpg

shit always has no soul, no sauce ,no juice where is the heat

shadowsword87 posted...

I was showing that AI art can do more than the awful generic AI art that's being plastered on every shitty mobile game. I was fairly clear about that.

Yeah sorry I wasn't really attacking you, just the picture, which was a good example.

TheSlinja posted...

shit always has no soul, no sauce ,no juice where is the heat

the heat is up my bhole

TheSlinja posted...

shit always has no soul, no sauce ,no juice where is the heat

It also has no structure or logic; it can whip up an amalgamate all sorts of things from other things, but you can't ask it to, say, draw two apples behind two other apples.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the heat is up my bhole

open ai, show me the inside of hellys bhole

The RIGHT way to use AI is to have it give you the basic outline of whatever it is you want and you go in and touch it up by hand to turn it into exactly what you want. It just does the busy work and leaves you with the stuff that actually matters.

This is true no matter what you use AI for (writing, recipes, drawing, programming, etc.). People who think AI is going to replace humans have no idea of what abilities AI has. It is always a helping tool, not a replacing one.

DrYuya posted...

Not arguing that the person who "creates" it is an artist.

If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.

You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.

Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.

People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).

There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.


For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.

Tech bros really do salivate over the death of art.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the issue is that you only ever see the bad stuff, or the stuff that's available for you to use for free

the good shit?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I1of9yqoy0I

the good shit is terrifyingly good

This still has an uncanny valley quality. They probably went w/ shades to work around the eyes usually being a dead give away, but the motions still are off and have an alien quality to them.

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

This still has an uncanny valley quality. They probably went w/ shades to work around the eyes usually being a dead give away, but the motions still are off and have an alien quality to them.

prompt: a close up of a woman wearing a transparent, prismatic, elaborate nemeses headdress, over the should pose, brown skin-tone
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2f1bd276.jpg

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.

You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.

Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.

People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).

There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.

For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.

The "skill" required to create AI art is the skill of typing something into a search engine. And you're completely glossing over the point that AI steals everything it does from what it can source on the Internet. A human can create art from scratch using only imagination, without ever having seen another single piece of art. AI can only emulate what it can steal, and if real artists stop producing new art then AI "art" can't evolve because its pool of material to steal isn't growing or changing. Just because you might think what AI produces looks or sounds as good as a human changes none of that.

"AI art generation == a tool like photoshop" also isn't that accurate because it replaces most, if not all of the creative process (ie the fun part of making art), instead of streamlining the boring parts of art creation. Its uses for actual artists are limited, and it's more a tool for people for people who don't make art to make okayish images with minimal effort and for corporate entities to cut costs.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.

That's the thing: Generative AI doesn't influence or facilitate the act of creation. It replaces it. Every other artistic tool simplifies or streamlines part of that act of creation, which may open up creative possibilities that would otherwise be inaccessible (like being able to select a colour from a wheel of 16.7 million of them instead of having to hand-mix pigments), but the actual act of creation still relies on the artist creating what they want no matter how many tools are available to help them express their ideas.

AI, however, does all the creation for you. Conceptually, it's identical to commissioning an artist to create something for you: You come up with an idea of what you want, you take that idea to somebody that has the skills needed to express that idea, and you work with what they've given you to fine-tune it to your needs/desires. The only real difference is that you don't have to pay for the commission because it's not a person doing it for you.

The line blurs a bit when you start talking about photography, but photography's in a weird space as an art form to begin with (the creativity and skill lies not necessarily in creating something new, but rather in figuring out how to capture something that already exists in a way that expresses the desired vision), so I'm fine with putting that aside because it doesn't lend itself to easy analogies.

Blue_Thunder posted...

Its uses for actual artists are limited, and it's more a tool for people for people who don't make art to make okayish images with minimal effort and for corporate entities to cut costs.

Pretty much. If you have the creativity and skill to create your own art, it's largely useless (at least generative stuff, AI-based enhancements can be helpful). If you don't, it saves you from having to pay somebody to shore up your deficiency.

AI art is good for small companies. One of the cost factors for board game and card game designers is paying an absurd amount to an artist for all the pieces. Now it can be done for free, allowing more freedom for game creation.

I'm pretty sure every single AI platform is being bogged down with lawsuits at the moment, due to the fact that it needs to source copywrited material in order to learn and generate, so it will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles. If some sort of royalty has to always be paid every time AI goes to generate something, then it goes a long way to crippling the supposed artist revolution of "now anyone can do it."

TomNook posted...

AI art is good for small companies. One of the cost factors for board game and card game designers is paying an absurd amount to an artist for all the pieces. Now it can be done for free, allowing more freedom for game creation.

If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.

There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.

man101 posted...

If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.

There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.

Good luck pirating a board game.

man101 posted...

If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.

There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.

big agree, smaller companies should contract smaller artists

the only area I see AI outsourcing as being ultimately ethical in is in like, homebrew D&D campaigns. you can tell it to brew up a random NPC's character sheet in like ten seconds and that's pretty badass

Revelation34 posted...

Good luck pirating a board game.

does tabletop simulator count as piracy because it has basically everything

Revelation34 posted...

Good luck pirating a board game.

The obvious implication being that I wouldn't buy a board game with AI art.

man101 posted...

There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product

It's not being cut out.

Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?

TomNook posted...

It's not being cut out.

Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?

did the blacksmith steal those utensils from another blacksmith and claim he made them? if so then yes.

I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?

You train an image set on X artist's work by clicking a button.
You type "a picture of a new pokemon by X artist"
You get an image that's nearly identical to X artist's work.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?

Depends. Image generation works by teaching (aka training) an AI to make new images based on an existing image set. You can train an AI using images that are free to use but most existing image generation models are taught using copyrighted works without the owners' consent and are therefore unethical.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?

Very broadly, the learning process involves looking at a wide variety of images and finding elements that are common to various descriptors. Then when you give it a prompt that includes those descriptors, it regurgitates some amalgamation of all elements it's learned that match those descriptors.

There's a ton more nuance to it than that, but the bottom line is that it has to learn from a set of images, generally getting better results the larger the set is. Those images form the basis for whatever it produces, so in a way it can be said to be copying parts of them, but where it doesn't strictly copy them it falls into a bit of a grey area as far as copyright goes. The legal nuance of that can be expected to play out over the next few years.

TomNook posted...

It's not being cut out.

Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?

That's such a horrible false equivalency. Restaurants buy supplies from someone else who makes or grows them. If a restaurant is only able to stay in business because they're stealing then damn right I'm refusing to eat there.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.

You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.

Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.

People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).

There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.

For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.

By that logic, if I tell somebody to paint me something, I'm an artist.

The core concept behind AI art is functionally no different than an editor commissioning art. You make a request, you ask for amendments to the art, but by definition you are NOT the artist, you are merely the person having the art made for them. And the instructions for telling a real person to create art and for a machine to create art are very much the same thing. The AI is replacing the person who'd make the art. And, by the way, even THAT isn't a unique concept. Prior to AI, you'd have services that took commissions for art then subcontracted that work out to people paid pennies for their work.

adjl posted...

AI, however, does all the creation for you. Conceptually, it's identical to commissioning an artist to create something for you: You come up with an idea of what you want, you take that idea to somebody that has the skills needed to express that idea, and you work with what they've given you to fine-tune it to your needs/desires. The only real difference is that you don't have to pay for the commission because it's not a person doing it for you.

...damnit, I should've scrolled a bit further so I could see adjl beat me to it.

However, I would note that a lot of generative AI does have fees attached to the service, so you're often still paying something. But usually it's closer to the rates for the subcontracted work rather than the contracted work.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?

Technically, it can do both. Because generative AI doesn't necessarily recognize elements, it can figures from a piece of artwork and put them as-is into another artwork (ie, no change to the figure itself).

In theory, it's creating new composition. In some cases, that involves recreating existing material and in other cases it might reuse it. However, there's so much content out there that it's tough to determine what belonged to what, outside of famous works.

man101 posted...

That's such a horrible false equivalency. Restaurants buy supplies from someone else who makes or grows them. If a restaurant is only able to stay in business because they're stealing then damn right I'm refusing to eat there.

It would still be false equivalency since AI can't steal anything. They can only commit copyright infringement.

Pee

Count_Drachma posted...

Technically, it can do both. Because generative AI doesn't necessarily recognize elements, it can figures from a piece of artwork and put them as-is into another artwork (ie, no change to the figure itself).

In theory, it's creating new composition. In some cases, that involves recreating existing material and in other cases it might reuse it. However, there's so much content out there that it's tough to determine what belonged to what, outside of famous works.

So it's not necessarily breaking any laws?

JOExHIGASHI posted...

So it's not necessarily breaking any laws?

Copyright infringement probably.

Revelation34 posted...

Copyright infringement probably.

It's transformative, not simply copying and pasting things.