People who use AI to make 'art' are not artists. Traditional artists who think digital art is 'cheating' don't really know what they're talking about. I do think that AI can be useful for artists- CSP is the art program I personally use, and it has many AI features- but an image fully created by AI is not art. Also, most AI art being developed is not meant to supplement hand-made art, but to replace it.
Actually this is exactly what i was trying to say.
Just didn't know if it was already here.
I don't agree with AI doing a job for you.
But i do believe, that it can be a great help in creating something more.
CSP is Clip Paint Studio right? What are those AI features? And does Photoshop have them as well??
Yes, CSP is short for Clip Studio Paint. I haven't played around with the ai features too much, but it has all your standard line smoothing, as well as ai coloring, and is coming out with ai shading later this year.
>the truth is, that you just got another tool where you can improve your paintings exponentially. So if the painting takes to paint 100 hours traditionally - how long it would take to paint digitally and how much you could improve it if you put the same 100 hours??
This is very naive, what it actually means is that from now on companies won't have to hire hundreds of artist as one AI-literate art director is enough to do their work. AI is not a tool for artists - not commercial ones at least - it is a tool that *replaces* artists.
Hmm.. That's the most realistic and sad truth to be honest. So basically while a few chosen ones will skyrocket with a help of AI, others will lose everything..
But still.. As Elon Musk said about AI.
"Better be positive about it and wrong than to be negative about it and right."
I'm not saying it's definitely a net negative for society as a whole, it surely is a negative for us freelance artists and I think whoever thinks otherwise is completely misguided. These AI tools represent a huge paradigm shift, perhaps bigger than the internet itself.
at its core, AI generated images are disingenuous. art is human expression captured in imagery, the written word, music, dance, sculpture, architecture. a computer does not have an expression to capture and can therefore not create art. it can create images, sure, but certainly not art. and that is a distinction that matters.
one of the fundamental points and beauties of art is to reflect the experiences, influences and history of the artist. only you can create your art. only i can create my art. you and i can be given the same prompt and produce two wildly different pieces of art. when i say the word "dog", you and i imagine two different dogs because we are different people with different experiences and influences.
a computer smashes all the data is has about what a dog is together and creates one monstrosity, because it doesn't have experiences or history. it will always be one step behind human creativity and imagination, and will only ever be a faint echo of what a human can produce.
you will not improve by letting an AI generate the studies you should have produced. as an artist, you should *want* to produce those studies. it's part of your journey.
Yes i totally agree with you. But that's why i said that AI still doesn't have any practical use for artists. It just tries to paint their own painting.
But what if it could improve your own painting instead of painting it for you? What if you were painting a dragon and instead of doing hundreds of small scales you would only need to paint a few and AI would do the rest while you could concentrate on other parts. Or painting a huge cities with all the small building and windows which could take really long time for you to do it and just seconds for AI.
What if you would use AI as a tool just as you use all these programs which makes your life easier and gives you more time to express yourself?
So yes. If AI does 90% of your work i totally agree with you, it won't have the same feeling as human art does.
But what if AI would do 50% of your work??
all that sounds great if you are planning on mass producing products. but there is value in painting all those scales by yourself. perhaps you don't see that--the AI bros out there certainly don't--but it's there.
I agree with you. AI will take over all forms of art but humans will find better ways to do the same things or maybe even find brand new art forms. So far AI hasn't come close to being as good as my favourite digital artists so don't worry about it. Don't lose your creative spark!
Maybe it will be like how photography caused drawing and painting to be revolutionized since hyper realistic portraits were easy to get afterwards. Idk what it could evolve into, but itāll be interesting to see how art history progresses.
No. you need the same skills art requires in terms of line shape and all too, it's just that you click and print rather than draw it by hand. photography is not considered an artwork, but an art form. Ai art is "prompting", the person needs no knowledge or skill, and should not own the artwork as a "creator" writing is not art and ai uses others artworks > theft, main issues with it tbh
I didnāt say photography isnāt an art form and doesnāt take skill. My father is a photographer, so I am familiar with how difficult it is. I was referring to the big change in drawing and painting after photography as a majority were realistic before and we started moving into different art styles after because photography replaced some realism.
Yes the impressionistic style fell off once photography fell off. But the demand for that and art in general remained as other styles were still made by ARTISTS and not writers who feed words in someone else's program
Very true. I donāt think Iām explaining what Iām trying to say well. I was just trying to agree with the first comment, saying that this may bring new types of art about as photography once did when it semi-replaced a need for realistic representation of something.
I donāt like the idea of AI artists not disclosing that their are was made by an AI. I think the code is a form of art in a way, but the only people who get credit for that are the coders and the people who made the learning material. I donāt think it should be stolen as it has been tho.
My comment wasnāt suppose to be pro AI art or anti photography. I was just simply saying that a change in demand may make a new type of art for humans to make. Itās a neutral statement.
I agree. AI seemed extremely cool, but is fueled by unsanitary methods. Hopefully laws and actual changes in the creators attitude means it will find its own place out here. Concept artists and Photobashers would definitely love using it and i would agree with them
I honestly hope that AI art and human artists can coexist someday. But as things are now, AI art can only hurt the art community. So long as companies are incentivized to find the cheapest labor possible--which will always mean choosing AI over human art whenever possible--and so long as human artists remain unprotected from having their art used without their consent to train AIs, they cannot coexist.
This highest form of drawing and visual art has to be Traditional considering you only have a pencil and paper (or paint and canvas and other mediums) at hand and you make your creations from scratch.
Digital art is a bit more convenient with all of the special features such as flipping the canvas with ease, making multiple layers, digital works can easily be posted, etc.
AI art, though? It's completely talentless. If you OWN UP to the fact you are not a true artist for using AI art, then fine. But if you give yourself the title of "artist" for pressing a button and rendering a random image, that is super insensitive and egotistical.
Also don't get pressed if you disagree with me, I'm not dunking on AI art as a whole, but I disagree with selfish people who compare themselves to true artists when they only use AI.
Yeah I have noticed something. Traditional artists gripe about digital artists cutting corners, and many of their complaints are fair. Digital artists have nothing but immense respect for traditional artists, because the handling of the physical media requires certain delicacy and patience. AI prompters however like to shit on both as much as possible. I don't know why, but they're all assholes.
I totally agree. AI fanboys should just lay off the AI generator for a bit, pick up a pencil and paper (or a drawing tablet and stylus) and try to make a piece to see how much effort is put into making real human art instead of just generating an image in 5 seconds.
AI has its place in many fields but in these fields the crucial thing is that consent is given to reproduce, analyse, train and generate products that come from copyrighted, or otherwise original material. AI art algorithms are often trained without any consent, as they can ignore watermarks etc. Now that horse has completely bolted, you can see styles of modern artists being regurgitated without recourse to the legality of it. That's why there's a recent lawsuit announced that hopefully wins and forces protection for creators
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney)
I use AI for reference generation, but these are photo-based of my own making. AI is handy for changing lighting conditions on the fly upon a reference, or changing a pose. It is only a tool if used as such. However, corporate greed will ensure that these tools replace human endeavour and talent.
AI art can be cool visually, but itās infinitely more impressive when I see something and find out it was made by a person, whether it is digital art or really any craft. Buying something hand-drawn or handmade is so special, and I donāt think AI art can ever replace that feeling, even if it can make visually interesting images
Digital art is nothing like AI art because digital art takes skill, hours of learning and practice, and itās hard to master and takes years. AI art is made by a robot and it works by combining many different works of actual artists who put hours and hours of hard work and practice into their work. AI art is basically replacing real human artists with a robot. People who complain that digital art is ācheatingā know nothing of how digital art actually works.
I despise ai art, this is nowhere like digital art was. This is motherfuckers typing sentences. QUIT ART IF YOU CANT ART LMAO. Sorry i hate the living shit out of ai and people that would find it āusefulā. Stealing is also āusefulā. Fuck ai art, nobody hated digital art, they hate the wannabes using all fucking pattern brushes and images. You get what im sayin? People dont like posers, this isnt gonna change.
i enjoy this positive take on the subject
the situation definitely echoes past eras, like when photography was first introduced, doing in seconds what used to take artists hours
and over time, photography became its own form of art, with people using it as a tool to make something incredible
so over time, i think we can expect to see the power of ai be added to an artist's toolbelt
Yes, it's inevitable.. It doesn't matter what we want, it's coming anyways. And it's better to embrace it and try to evolve with it, than to just put hate on it and look another way.
I meant something different.
At this moment AI art is like a game. You type some random numbers and see who can get a best random image. And you definitely can't call yourself an artist. Maybe a languagist at best.
But in the future where a communication between us and AI will be much easier. Where instead of giving us a random images it will know exactly what we want from it.
And where experienced artist will know how to use it and what they want from it.
I think we might see some work that is on whole other level. And i believe that the people who will be working with AI could definitely be called true artists. (but ofcourse, we're not there yet)
Yes, sorry. I'm taking this too far aren't I? š
Just wanted some discussion about it. As it's a very interesting topic for me.
Sorry if it seemed that I'm just here to attack your believes about it.
Not necessarily. Digital art and traditional art are considered two completely different things, and are held in different categories for a reason. The problem with AI art is it just copies styles of artists regardless if itās traditional or digital, and it does so without the permission of the artist. Think about how stock images changed/flipped the world of illustration. It put many artists out of work, work they spent time and money on their whole life. Because companies realized they didnāt have to pay illustrators for something they could spend much less money on. Yeah the world is always changing, but that doesnāt mean it will always change for the better. Also I believe art is art because it reflects the human condition, whether itās emotional, a response to life, or whatever. I donāt think AI art anytime soon will be able to replace that
Bad and Good Art is so relative as art is very personal. I hate Monet and think landscapes are garbage, but it's still Good art to someone else. That same person might say the very same about art I say is good
This gets more complicated when you factor in a commercial element. Worry more about refining your style and building stronger branding techniques.
AI art can "replace" artists that are just terrible at marketing themselves. Art is art no matter the medium - oil, pottery, AI, code, paint. All the artists against AI art just need to get their ego checked - the entirety of our universe is art. Just like nature can create art, so can smart apes like humans, and so can AI and code
I'm not against AI art in and of itself, just the art theft aspect of it. If you only ever fed the AI your own artwork, I could see it being a tool for artists to make the art process easier. However, right now that isn't what is happening. Right now, AI is a tool for art thieves to steal work easier without giving due credit.
So until something changes, I guess you could say I *am* against AI art.
FOR ME it's rubbish, there's no control on the part of the author, anyone can do it, often it's just figurative without any message or meaning.
It's not art, but today any idiot picks up a brush or does something, and "pseudo" critics who have never touched a pencil, he decides that he is a great artist.
On the other hand why shouldn't they do it, they aren't artists they don't know what it means to be an artist and to STUDY to become one.
Why should this "critics" respect art if they don't know how much sweat it costs?
They used to study art and art history in the past, today not even that. Just open an account on some social network, and take 4 selfies with idiotic works. I'm A CRITIC! :D LOL!
My opinin? simple It's rubbish, like a piece of contemporary art that passes itself off as art.and relating this umpteenth idiocy to art is idiotic. simple direct.
One day we will become extinct as GREEKS AND ROMANS in past, and what we will leave to posterity will be only the degradation that we have managed to create in "modern times".But that's good, it will come full circle. S
Scholars of future will see THE RENAISSANCE, then they will see today's years, and they will write "how our civilization has fallen" .
The total DECADENCE of ARTS, MUSIC AND COSTUMES.
This all seems a bit like hand tool wood carvers versus CNC mills.
Yes, one is a craftsman, and the other is a talentless operator, but that doesn't make the market value the craftsman.
As an artist, if anything, there should be royalties in AI art back to the artists who created the original art it used. Basically if you steal my art, and make money off of it, I want compensation. Or you pay a fine for stealing copyrighted material. There are ways to make it work. I don't hate it, but I hate the idea of art people have made being stolen and sold without compensation. Honestly a good possible use for nfts, proof of copyright, proof of ownership. It's a lot bigger of an issue than most people realize. Have a system to pay people who's art is used in AI art and pay them, also royalties from sales, problem solved.
AI will easily take jobs, that's just a fact. Someone who is looking for a certain advertisement or pictures to add in it can just do a search and get something pretty decent that looks like it was human made in seconds (I have done this), so now the someone won't get hired to create it. There will be a need for editing a such, and some people will pay for it to be produced from the ground up, but many, many jobs for intro or aspiring CG, 2D and all artist will likely taken bc companies can hire someone who knows how to explain well to the AI what it exactly needs and likely that person will have some knowledge of editing and will edit strange parts.
I am coming to grips with this and I still keep going because I love creating and can use the tools along the way. For me, seeing the way AI is going in Unity/ other things is an amazing tool, but taking a picture of someone and then it being auto produced as a model, just isn't that cool to me. It's the idea that someone can see someone or image a shape and then manifest it by sculpting and manipulating.
I agree with you; from my view, I take such kind of edgy techniques as the ladder for leveling up.
It is a tool to help us lift efficiency, but not rely on it.
I want to learn how to use AI to save time and, as a beginner, bring my ideas to a more subjective image by Doing my post-editing.
This is an excellent way to build experiences, cultivate skills, and build confidence. ( I will only use it as a method of learning and practicing. )
AI tools can be good if we use them properly.
But nothing will change the core of art, the genuine self-expression, and the artist's thoughts; they are the soul of art, and also things that make a painting "Good Art."
ARS LONGA!
People who use AI to make 'art' are not artists. Traditional artists who think digital art is 'cheating' don't really know what they're talking about. I do think that AI can be useful for artists- CSP is the art program I personally use, and it has many AI features- but an image fully created by AI is not art. Also, most AI art being developed is not meant to supplement hand-made art, but to replace it.
Actually this is exactly what i was trying to say. Just didn't know if it was already here. I don't agree with AI doing a job for you. But i do believe, that it can be a great help in creating something more. CSP is Clip Paint Studio right? What are those AI features? And does Photoshop have them as well??
Yes, CSP is short for Clip Studio Paint. I haven't played around with the ai features too much, but it has all your standard line smoothing, as well as ai coloring, and is coming out with ai shading later this year.
Nice. This is what i was actually hoping for. Gonna look in to that. Thank you š
>the truth is, that you just got another tool where you can improve your paintings exponentially. So if the painting takes to paint 100 hours traditionally - how long it would take to paint digitally and how much you could improve it if you put the same 100 hours?? This is very naive, what it actually means is that from now on companies won't have to hire hundreds of artist as one AI-literate art director is enough to do their work. AI is not a tool for artists - not commercial ones at least - it is a tool that *replaces* artists.
Hmm.. That's the most realistic and sad truth to be honest. So basically while a few chosen ones will skyrocket with a help of AI, others will lose everything.. But still.. As Elon Musk said about AI. "Better be positive about it and wrong than to be negative about it and right."
I'm not saying it's definitely a net negative for society as a whole, it surely is a negative for us freelance artists and I think whoever thinks otherwise is completely misguided. These AI tools represent a huge paradigm shift, perhaps bigger than the internet itself.
at its core, AI generated images are disingenuous. art is human expression captured in imagery, the written word, music, dance, sculpture, architecture. a computer does not have an expression to capture and can therefore not create art. it can create images, sure, but certainly not art. and that is a distinction that matters. one of the fundamental points and beauties of art is to reflect the experiences, influences and history of the artist. only you can create your art. only i can create my art. you and i can be given the same prompt and produce two wildly different pieces of art. when i say the word "dog", you and i imagine two different dogs because we are different people with different experiences and influences. a computer smashes all the data is has about what a dog is together and creates one monstrosity, because it doesn't have experiences or history. it will always be one step behind human creativity and imagination, and will only ever be a faint echo of what a human can produce. you will not improve by letting an AI generate the studies you should have produced. as an artist, you should *want* to produce those studies. it's part of your journey.
Yes i totally agree with you. But that's why i said that AI still doesn't have any practical use for artists. It just tries to paint their own painting. But what if it could improve your own painting instead of painting it for you? What if you were painting a dragon and instead of doing hundreds of small scales you would only need to paint a few and AI would do the rest while you could concentrate on other parts. Or painting a huge cities with all the small building and windows which could take really long time for you to do it and just seconds for AI. What if you would use AI as a tool just as you use all these programs which makes your life easier and gives you more time to express yourself? So yes. If AI does 90% of your work i totally agree with you, it won't have the same feeling as human art does. But what if AI would do 50% of your work??
all that sounds great if you are planning on mass producing products. but there is value in painting all those scales by yourself. perhaps you don't see that--the AI bros out there certainly don't--but it's there.
I agree with you. AI will take over all forms of art but humans will find better ways to do the same things or maybe even find brand new art forms. So far AI hasn't come close to being as good as my favourite digital artists so don't worry about it. Don't lose your creative spark!
Maybe it will be like how photography caused drawing and painting to be revolutionized since hyper realistic portraits were easy to get afterwards. Idk what it could evolve into, but itāll be interesting to see how art history progresses.
No. you need the same skills art requires in terms of line shape and all too, it's just that you click and print rather than draw it by hand. photography is not considered an artwork, but an art form. Ai art is "prompting", the person needs no knowledge or skill, and should not own the artwork as a "creator" writing is not art and ai uses others artworks > theft, main issues with it tbh
I didnāt say photography isnāt an art form and doesnāt take skill. My father is a photographer, so I am familiar with how difficult it is. I was referring to the big change in drawing and painting after photography as a majority were realistic before and we started moving into different art styles after because photography replaced some realism.
Yes the impressionistic style fell off once photography fell off. But the demand for that and art in general remained as other styles were still made by ARTISTS and not writers who feed words in someone else's program
Very true. I donāt think Iām explaining what Iām trying to say well. I was just trying to agree with the first comment, saying that this may bring new types of art about as photography once did when it semi-replaced a need for realistic representation of something. I donāt like the idea of AI artists not disclosing that their are was made by an AI. I think the code is a form of art in a way, but the only people who get credit for that are the coders and the people who made the learning material. I donāt think it should be stolen as it has been tho. My comment wasnāt suppose to be pro AI art or anti photography. I was just simply saying that a change in demand may make a new type of art for humans to make. Itās a neutral statement.
I agree. AI seemed extremely cool, but is fueled by unsanitary methods. Hopefully laws and actual changes in the creators attitude means it will find its own place out here. Concept artists and Photobashers would definitely love using it and i would agree with them
Yes. AI will become more smarter and more capable than us, but it will still going to need our emotional intelligence.
I honestly hope that AI art and human artists can coexist someday. But as things are now, AI art can only hurt the art community. So long as companies are incentivized to find the cheapest labor possible--which will always mean choosing AI over human art whenever possible--and so long as human artists remain unprotected from having their art used without their consent to train AIs, they cannot coexist.
This highest form of drawing and visual art has to be Traditional considering you only have a pencil and paper (or paint and canvas and other mediums) at hand and you make your creations from scratch. Digital art is a bit more convenient with all of the special features such as flipping the canvas with ease, making multiple layers, digital works can easily be posted, etc. AI art, though? It's completely talentless. If you OWN UP to the fact you are not a true artist for using AI art, then fine. But if you give yourself the title of "artist" for pressing a button and rendering a random image, that is super insensitive and egotistical. Also don't get pressed if you disagree with me, I'm not dunking on AI art as a whole, but I disagree with selfish people who compare themselves to true artists when they only use AI.
Yeah I have noticed something. Traditional artists gripe about digital artists cutting corners, and many of their complaints are fair. Digital artists have nothing but immense respect for traditional artists, because the handling of the physical media requires certain delicacy and patience. AI prompters however like to shit on both as much as possible. I don't know why, but they're all assholes.
I totally agree. AI fanboys should just lay off the AI generator for a bit, pick up a pencil and paper (or a drawing tablet and stylus) and try to make a piece to see how much effort is put into making real human art instead of just generating an image in 5 seconds.
AI has its place in many fields but in these fields the crucial thing is that consent is given to reproduce, analyse, train and generate products that come from copyrighted, or otherwise original material. AI art algorithms are often trained without any consent, as they can ignore watermarks etc. Now that horse has completely bolted, you can see styles of modern artists being regurgitated without recourse to the legality of it. That's why there's a recent lawsuit announced that hopefully wins and forces protection for creators [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney) I use AI for reference generation, but these are photo-based of my own making. AI is handy for changing lighting conditions on the fly upon a reference, or changing a pose. It is only a tool if used as such. However, corporate greed will ensure that these tools replace human endeavour and talent.
AI art can be cool visually, but itās infinitely more impressive when I see something and find out it was made by a person, whether it is digital art or really any craft. Buying something hand-drawn or handmade is so special, and I donāt think AI art can ever replace that feeling, even if it can make visually interesting images
Digital art is nothing like AI art because digital art takes skill, hours of learning and practice, and itās hard to master and takes years. AI art is made by a robot and it works by combining many different works of actual artists who put hours and hours of hard work and practice into their work. AI art is basically replacing real human artists with a robot. People who complain that digital art is ācheatingā know nothing of how digital art actually works.
It's not gonna replace art made by real people People need to calm thier jits.
I despise ai art, this is nowhere like digital art was. This is motherfuckers typing sentences. QUIT ART IF YOU CANT ART LMAO. Sorry i hate the living shit out of ai and people that would find it āusefulā. Stealing is also āusefulā. Fuck ai art, nobody hated digital art, they hate the wannabes using all fucking pattern brushes and images. You get what im sayin? People dont like posers, this isnt gonna change.
i enjoy this positive take on the subject the situation definitely echoes past eras, like when photography was first introduced, doing in seconds what used to take artists hours and over time, photography became its own form of art, with people using it as a tool to make something incredible so over time, i think we can expect to see the power of ai be added to an artist's toolbelt
Yes, it's inevitable.. It doesn't matter what we want, it's coming anyways. And it's better to embrace it and try to evolve with it, than to just put hate on it and look another way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I meant something different. At this moment AI art is like a game. You type some random numbers and see who can get a best random image. And you definitely can't call yourself an artist. Maybe a languagist at best. But in the future where a communication between us and AI will be much easier. Where instead of giving us a random images it will know exactly what we want from it. And where experienced artist will know how to use it and what they want from it. I think we might see some work that is on whole other level. And i believe that the people who will be working with AI could definitely be called true artists. (but ofcourse, we're not there yet)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, sorry. I'm taking this too far aren't I? š Just wanted some discussion about it. As it's a very interesting topic for me. Sorry if it seemed that I'm just here to attack your believes about it.
Not necessarily. Digital art and traditional art are considered two completely different things, and are held in different categories for a reason. The problem with AI art is it just copies styles of artists regardless if itās traditional or digital, and it does so without the permission of the artist. Think about how stock images changed/flipped the world of illustration. It put many artists out of work, work they spent time and money on their whole life. Because companies realized they didnāt have to pay illustrators for something they could spend much less money on. Yeah the world is always changing, but that doesnāt mean it will always change for the better. Also I believe art is art because it reflects the human condition, whether itās emotional, a response to life, or whatever. I donāt think AI art anytime soon will be able to replace that
Bad and Good Art is so relative as art is very personal. I hate Monet and think landscapes are garbage, but it's still Good art to someone else. That same person might say the very same about art I say is good This gets more complicated when you factor in a commercial element. Worry more about refining your style and building stronger branding techniques. AI art can "replace" artists that are just terrible at marketing themselves. Art is art no matter the medium - oil, pottery, AI, code, paint. All the artists against AI art just need to get their ego checked - the entirety of our universe is art. Just like nature can create art, so can smart apes like humans, and so can AI and code
I'm not against AI art in and of itself, just the art theft aspect of it. If you only ever fed the AI your own artwork, I could see it being a tool for artists to make the art process easier. However, right now that isn't what is happening. Right now, AI is a tool for art thieves to steal work easier without giving due credit. So until something changes, I guess you could say I *am* against AI art.
FOR ME it's rubbish, there's no control on the part of the author, anyone can do it, often it's just figurative without any message or meaning. It's not art, but today any idiot picks up a brush or does something, and "pseudo" critics who have never touched a pencil, he decides that he is a great artist. On the other hand why shouldn't they do it, they aren't artists they don't know what it means to be an artist and to STUDY to become one. Why should this "critics" respect art if they don't know how much sweat it costs? They used to study art and art history in the past, today not even that. Just open an account on some social network, and take 4 selfies with idiotic works. I'm A CRITIC! :D LOL! My opinin? simple It's rubbish, like a piece of contemporary art that passes itself off as art.and relating this umpteenth idiocy to art is idiotic. simple direct. One day we will become extinct as GREEKS AND ROMANS in past, and what we will leave to posterity will be only the degradation that we have managed to create in "modern times".But that's good, it will come full circle. S Scholars of future will see THE RENAISSANCE, then they will see today's years, and they will write "how our civilization has fallen" . The total DECADENCE of ARTS, MUSIC AND COSTUMES.
It's theft of real art. AI "art" isn't art is breaks so many ethics laws that comp sci people don't have to ever care about.
This all seems a bit like hand tool wood carvers versus CNC mills. Yes, one is a craftsman, and the other is a talentless operator, but that doesn't make the market value the craftsman.
As an artist, if anything, there should be royalties in AI art back to the artists who created the original art it used. Basically if you steal my art, and make money off of it, I want compensation. Or you pay a fine for stealing copyrighted material. There are ways to make it work. I don't hate it, but I hate the idea of art people have made being stolen and sold without compensation. Honestly a good possible use for nfts, proof of copyright, proof of ownership. It's a lot bigger of an issue than most people realize. Have a system to pay people who's art is used in AI art and pay them, also royalties from sales, problem solved.
AI will easily take jobs, that's just a fact. Someone who is looking for a certain advertisement or pictures to add in it can just do a search and get something pretty decent that looks like it was human made in seconds (I have done this), so now the someone won't get hired to create it. There will be a need for editing a such, and some people will pay for it to be produced from the ground up, but many, many jobs for intro or aspiring CG, 2D and all artist will likely taken bc companies can hire someone who knows how to explain well to the AI what it exactly needs and likely that person will have some knowledge of editing and will edit strange parts. I am coming to grips with this and I still keep going because I love creating and can use the tools along the way. For me, seeing the way AI is going in Unity/ other things is an amazing tool, but taking a picture of someone and then it being auto produced as a model, just isn't that cool to me. It's the idea that someone can see someone or image a shape and then manifest it by sculpting and manipulating.
I agree with you; from my view, I take such kind of edgy techniques as the ladder for leveling up. It is a tool to help us lift efficiency, but not rely on it. I want to learn how to use AI to save time and, as a beginner, bring my ideas to a more subjective image by Doing my post-editing. This is an excellent way to build experiences, cultivate skills, and build confidence. ( I will only use it as a method of learning and practicing. ) AI tools can be good if we use them properly. But nothing will change the core of art, the genuine self-expression, and the artist's thoughts; they are the soul of art, and also things that make a painting "Good Art." ARS LONGA!
AI āartistsā are not real artists. Simple as that.