Current Events > deviant art felt jealous of all the bad press twitter was getting

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1591131133647126528

read full chain its a special kind of a disaster that fucks over artists

AI generated art is the dumbest shit ever and the only people who seem to be impressed by it are children who don't understand how it works, and horny weebs.

CRON posted...

AI generated art is the dumbest shit ever

i'm sick of it too, it undermines real art and any work real artists put into improving and creating

damn. the war begins.

AI generated art is fascinating because I imagine this is the exact same arguments as when the camera was invented and "realism" was suddenly made trivial.

s0nicfan posted...

AI generated art is fascinating because I imagine this is the exact same arguments as when the camera was invented and "realism" was suddenly made trivial.

But it's not. There's nothing artistic about AI art. It's literally the same thing as if Google/DDG had some app which took every image search result for a certain query and made some gibberish composite.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/8/9/AADAKwAAD3wF.jpg

CRON posted...

But it's not. There's nothing artistic about AI art. It's literally the same thing as if Google/DDG had some app which took every image search result for a certain query and made some gibberish composite.

https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/

Photography couldnt qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.

AI art owns btw. embrace the future. no boomerism

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And AI art will be seen the same way once people get over fear of change.

more like deviant fart

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/4/AAe2uzAAD3wK.jpg

s0nicfan posted...

https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/

It's a completely different argument. With photography, even though it's a technical process, human creativity and acumen is required to make photographs look interesting.

AI art, like I mentioned, is literally just computer software making a gibberish composite of image databases. Until it improves to the theoretical point where humans can manipulate and modify the gibberish in 3D space, it's not artistic.

I'm not certain they actually want a lot of the stuff on deviant art to be part of their algorithim.

"Why is the algorithim continually giving me anthro pictures of pregnant my little ponies?"

CRON posted...

It's a completely different argument. With photography, even though it's a technical process, human creativity and acumen is required to make photographs look interesting.

AI art, like I mentioned, is literally just computer software making a gibberish composite of image databases. Until it improves to the theoretical point where humans can manipulate and modify the gibberish in 3D space, it's not artistic.

You're oversimplifying things because the tools being exposed to the public right now are simple, but what you're missing is the massive amount of tuning that happens behind the scenes to make it work. The sample data chosen. The hyperparameters tuned just right to avoid getting complete jibberish. Even the exact way you phrase things as input can have a drastic impact on what is generated.

It's not that AI art isn't art. It's that it is so new that an "AI artist" hasn't reached sufficient levels of skill to demonstrate its full potential in the way the first photograph is nothing like what a modern professional photographer can do.

EDIT: and to get philosophical, what do you mean by "gibberish"? I can point to plenty of modern art that's like... "I sneezed on a canvas" that is no more determinstic in its outcome than AI generation, but we call it art anyway. If we can call a literal blank canvas art I don't see how you can argue AI art isn't art just because you don't find it, what, more interpretable?

What's the difference between AI gibberish and this:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/6/AABJX0AAD3wM.jpg

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


So if a human picks the words that go into an algorithm, how is that any different than a human choosing what time of day to take a photo?

If a human generates AI art, cuts it into a triangle, and then frames the triangle, is it now art because the human did something more to it? What if they generate AI art and then add a single brush stroke? Is it art now? What if they add a single brush stroke from a randomly generated image... is that enough "humanity" to turn it into art? What if they don't do anything to the image beyond picking which frame to put it in... is that enough human involvement? Can you even put into words where exactly the boundary is beyond "I don't like it so it isn't art?" Do you even understand the technology well enough to know what you don't know?

CRON posted...

It's a completely different argument. With photography, even though it's a technical process, human creativity and acumen is required to make photographs look interesting.

AI art, like I mentioned, is literally just computer software making a gibberish composite of image databases. Until it improves to the theoretical point where humans can manipulate and modify the gibberish in 3D space, it's not artistic.

Sounds like youre the one who doesnt understand what AI art is tbh

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Hey, I appreciate the honesty. I just find the debate fascinating.

AI art is an interesting concept, and I say that as a visual artist whose livelihood could very well be rendered obsolete by it. Ideally, the ability to create visual imagery should not be limited to those born with the talent to do so.

But it's a tool ripe for abuse, especially in its infancy, and DA's being pretty scummy about implementing it.

Anyway yall are acting like AI art generators just exist and not that the mere fact that they exist means that some extremely smart engineer or team of engineers created the algorithm necessary to make an AI that could generate recognizable images based on words

that, in itself, is art

I find AI art interesting, but it does need more work. This is a terrible policy, though, and DA should be ashamed of themselves.

How is copyright handled when components of your content are up for grabs to be copied and mashed together in new images?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I have an alt there from years ago that hasn't been closed, so you have to close it manually.

This will just push people to come to gamefaqs.gamespot.com r-right

AI "art" is not itself art, but it might be the basis for art with further work applied. People comparing the outcry against AI art to the development of other new mediums are being disingenuous. Photography was hated originally because it endangered the livelihoods of landscape and portrait painters. Photography did take some of those jobs, but it still requires a good deal of skill and work on the part of a photographer to get good images. Moreover, portrait paintings and landscape paintings were and are still sought after because human artists can inject something special to the interpretation of the subject matter.

Tools like Stable Diffusion are different. You type in a sentence (which you can find on lexia or a similar gallery and make small adjustments to), move a couple of sliders (or not---the defaults work great 90% of the time, and for the remaining 10%, you just move them 'til prompt looks good) and then have the thing spit out as many pieces of art as you want. If none of them look anywhere close to good, you move a couple of words around the prompt or poke the sliders until something decent gets pushed out. You can even add some kind of basic scribbles and have the software "finish it" for you. Where, exactly, is the supposed creativity of the user coming from when creating these "works"?

Stable Diffusion was trained on billions of images---that isn't how a human learns to draw at all and it is very different than using a reference. It isn't a tool like a digital or physical brush: it does all the work for you, and can spit things out in any form or style you like. You can even further refine the model using specific images if you want something very specific that it doesn't do well out of the box. It is a phenomenal achievement of computer science, and it relies on billions of extant, tagged images in order work its magic. I've used almost all of them at this point, and I'll fight anyone who declares that people using Stable Diffusion are working hard to get their results. Some things it just won't do (like recreate likenesses of specific anime characters with very few references available) and for some things you need a different model. But if you earnestly sit down with Stable Diffusion and try and make something and aren't getting in the right ballpark in under 30 minutes, something has gone horribly wrong.

There is something fundamentally different about "regular" art mediums. Even stuff like making complex materials in Substance Designer requires a real negotiation between the artist and their medium, and you grow as a person the more work with a medium. Stable Diffusion is just a really fast Fiverr artist you direct and don't pay (or pay a monthly fee for work), not an art medium.

People know this, too. They want to desperately claim that they made their work, just like a painter made a painting. In fact, there has a been a flood of people who claim stubbornly that they did paint or draw something that is obviously AI produced.

darkmaian23 posted...

Stable Diffusion was trained on billions of images---that isn't how a human learns to draw at all

Yes it is. Things you see in your everyday life count as images to draw inspiration from. You can't draw a tree if you've never seen one before.

We probably need some clear legislation on AI and how it impacts copyright and licenses soon. If an AI generates something entirely 'new' based on the training data, it would probably be fine. If an AI basically copies and pastes recognizable pieces of someone else's work, then that is obviously not okay. There's a lot of grey area between those points and it entirely depends on the implementation of the AI and amount of training data.

A similar discussion is happening with Microsoft's Copilot, which is an AI that can generate pieces of code in programming editors. Copilot was trained on code that was uploaded to Github - a lot of which has some sort of license that doesn't allow you to freely redistribute the code under a different/ commercial license. There's an obvious issue is a copilot user ends up with lines of code in their program, without knowing where it came from or whether they're even allowed to use it.

I want a future where entertainment products are 100% AI produced.

All the animation, all the writing and directing, all the voice work, all of it is created by computer with no human input.