# About the AI Art



## GemStoner (Nov 12, 2022)

I'm sorry if this is going to be a sore subject, or spark an argument, or if it's already been brought up and deemed a bad topic for this forum, but I really want to know what other people are thinking and feeling about this.

I was really surprised to not see any journals on FA talking about it, or any threads here talking about what stance FA has on AI art, if any, etc. 

For anybody who hasn't already heard, a person fairly recently won an art contest with an AI generated image, but even worse was how the artist Kim Jung Gi recently passed away and not even a month after his death, somebody already fed all his art to an AI, so now anybody can just produce art in this deceased man's personal distinct style...

I see a lot of people trying to downplay how much this is going to affect artists and art in general, comparing it to things like the rise of photoshop, but I think it's completely different.
A person with no skill in art will still use photoshop to draw a stick figure, with digital art you still had to learn all the basics the same as with traditional art.

One thing I don't think enough people understand, at least the people defending or downplaying it, is that this will make it nearly impossible for anybody who develops a unique style to actually be able to make a name for themselves with it. I can think of quite a few artists with VERY distinct styles, even if it's just the way they color that really stands out.

People already copied each other like crazy, but now I think if a new artist were to try and put themselves out there with a unique style, they will just get ripped off so immediately, and in such numbers, that nobody will know or care who even was the first to do X. That's like not being able to give credit to Van Gogh for his place in art history because so many people copied him in his own time that we'll never know who the real Van Gogh was... 

I know I'm being dramatic and catastrophizing, but I don't think this is just going to blow over like the NFT thing kinda did. In fact, the AI art thing has invigorated the NFT bros all over again, because now they can make NFT's that actually look decent with basically no effort involved.

For now I am just really holding on to the hope that recording our process or taking screenshots will be enough to prove who the real artists are, at least until the tech bros figure out how to work around that and call us selfish for wanting to distinguish ourselves from them...

I haven't been posting art much for a while, but I have been working on it and honing my skills, after years of struggling with it I finally feel like I can paint fur in a way I really like, and it really sucks to know that when I do finally start posting again, I'm probably going to be met with a bunch of accusations, since it will appear like I got better overnight compared to most of my older art, so I'll probably get cancelled just as soon as I come back anyway. And now when we see somebody whose gallery is really impressive, now we'll always have to be second guessing whether they are legit and most artists will probably be assumed fake until proven otherwise.

I used to think that the classical artists would be jealous of us today, having things like photoshop to work with, now I feel the opposite and almost overnight this has become the worst age to be an artist. No matter what the people defending or downplaying it try to say, I believe artists like Van Gogh would be emotionally devastated if they knew their VOICE as an artist would just become a prompt anybody could use. I do not think it counts as a "tool just like photoshop" and even the artists who may find positive ways to implement it at first, it will either take over their whole process or take their job entirely, eventually.


----------



## Foxridley (Nov 12, 2022)

I actually did start a thread on AI-generated art, which went on for a while.
I do agree that it's not a tool like photoshop, since you're still manipulating the tools yourself in those cases. With AI-generated art, you're giving a prompt to another entity that creates the image _for_ you. So (in a charitable view), the person's role is more like a commissioner than an artist.
In a less chartiable view, it's like fine-tuning a google search and picking the best results.

One area that I see as less of an issue is in "AI-assisted art", or what you might call mixed human/AI-made art. In those cases, a person might do their own work, starting from an AI-generated image. Or they might draw characters into an AI-generated background.


----------



## Pomorek (Nov 13, 2022)

GemStoner said:


> I'm sorry if this is going to be a sore subject, or spark an argument, or if it's already been brought up and deemed a bad topic for this forum, but I really want to know what other people are thinking and feeling about this.
> 
> I was really surprised to not see any journals on FA talking about it, or any threads here talking about what stance FA has on AI art, if any, etc.
> 
> ...


To the extent I can speak for others, your feelings about this matter were generally shared. Also the AI-made art was banned on the main site.

Personally I also find it cheaty and dishonest, especially because how it ignores intellectual property of individual creators. It's high-tech piracy to me, basically. But I'm also quite pessimistic: the djinn has been released from the bottle, is there even a way to put it back in? Can't readily think of a case where a technology would get successfully removed once it was implemented. 

Good that I never cared about the monetary aspect of online art as the risk is that we're going to see a decline of it.


----------



## GemStoner (Nov 13, 2022)

@Pomorek I felt like I was already going on too long but those are more of the things that are really bothering me about it.

I missed the other discussions about this here partly because I was trying to ignore it at first, I didn't want to let it affect me. Like you I want to keep doing art even if I never got paid for it again, but I don't want to live in a world where we have to second guess art all the time, a world where the real works of Van Gogh will get drowned in an ocean of images made in his style.

like others I wanted to take comfort in the fact it still couldn't get hands to look right, it still wasn't real competition. But it's advancing really fast, of course. So many things started popping up about how quickly it was getting better. I finally just had this funny feeling I should check DA to see how it was playing out there, turned out I came back on exactly the day they implemented their own AI to the site, and automatically opted everyone's galleries in.  

Now that I've taken a good look at it, I'm really having a hard time adjusting. On top of feeling really sad for all the artists whose jobs will be affected. It already felt like everything was becoming fake and a scam, now that's ramping up by a lot. It's definitely the biggest change to art in our lifetimes, makes the jump to digital look like nothing.


----------



## CreachureComforts (Nov 14, 2022)

Taking inspiration from an AI image is fine, it's no different than getting inspired from anything else. And the stuff it can come up with is beyond my imagination (I'm personally obsessed with how AIs struggle to generate text and letters.) I'd also consider AI assistance to be fine, and it already exists in various forms, even something as simple as lineart stabilization is handled by a computer. I'd even give a pass to generating a starting point, since it's like searching for your own prompts for inspiration. (Reverse AI-generated art?)

But art that was mainly generated by an AI absolutely does not belong in the same realm as normal art. I strongly believe art gallery sites like FA and dA should be working against submissions of mainly-AI generated art, because that goes against the idea that personal galleries are for personal art. (I know reposts happen, but at least the artist and artwork are usually credited properly.) And whoever won that art competition with AI art should have been immediately disqualified.

It's all terrible and unfortunately I just don't think we can even do anything about it at this point. It's all glorified art theft, which is a huge issue itself. I try to put it in the back of my mind and focus on working on my own art, and hopefully not get accused somehow. If I do get accused for some reason, well, hopefully the sketches I have on hand are enough proof that I'm legit.


----------



## Amepix Will Win (Nov 14, 2022)

AI is scaring me now. We have deep fakes, AI art, do we have AI robots yet? Good lord, I don't wanna see how much farther this can go...


----------



## sushy (Nov 16, 2022)

To me it is very concerning. I also don't like that when I visit an art website now, I first have to check if the artwork is AI or not. I personally prefer to interact with art that is made by a person. 

And yeah, it scares me a lot too. This year has been quite difficult as an artist and with this development it seems things are going to get worse. What even is the point of trying to make it as an artist if AI becomes the norm for artwork?


----------



## Deleted member 160111 (Nov 16, 2022)

I risk expressing an unpopular opinion. And uh, don't beat me up for that, okay. I'm already feeling lousy, so just ignore it if everything is so wrong in your opinion.
So. I don't think that creating an AI background and then adding characters to the background is a "meaningful job." The background created by AI can look amazing, and I've seen it many times. If some artist adds a dragon that flies there to this fantastic AI landscape, this art still attracts the viewer's attention with the landscape. The dragon is just a nice addition.

If many people start ignoring the background, only draw characters on it, the value of art falls (the artist relies on the beauty of AI generation completely). And this art will attract attention thanks to the AI works for backgrounds. We get a collage, or something close to it. I definitely don't think it's an honest move.


----------



## Pomorek (Nov 18, 2022)

This is so confusing though. Machines can make art nowadays. But have them prepare a hotdog successfully? Oh no you don't.


----------



## Inferndragon (Nov 22, 2022)

AI is a tool for people to use.
Unfortunately, like all things...
Exploitation of those tools is human nature with capitalism ruins it.

AI uses subsets of existing art to generate what people might like.
AI to cater adverts towards people... using subsets to see what you are likely to buy.
Then using AI art to generate custom adverts that would grab your attention...

Only thing i look forward to is AI world generation in games.
Imagine having an AI that creates 3D models to generate flora that is all unique and follows rules.
Ever evolving and actually growing slowly. So you can make the perfect atmosphere.
We already have procedural generation in games which is a dumbed down version of that anyways.


----------



## Sodasats20 (Nov 22, 2022)

You see I think things like ai art (though I’ve used it myself, I know, hypocrite) is that it’s just gonna hurt the art economy if it keeps getting better and better. It’s gonna be another instance where machines take jobs from humans. I swear Detroit be one human is becoming more of a possibility every day.


----------



## Vanessa Howl (Nov 22, 2022)

I honestly see no problem with it so long as nothing is legit being stolen. Some people just can't draw but are good with computer programs so why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to express themselves with the aid of AI?

Hell, i can't even do computer programs and would KILL for a easy and free to use one where I could just type in what I want and my AI friend will give it to me: sometimes you just want arts and don't really care where it came from.

Edit: Just want to make it clear that I'm JUST talking about AI generated art and not NFTs. I fucking HATE NFTs and anyone that likes them can burn in Hell.


----------



## Inferndragon (Nov 23, 2022)

Vanessa Howl said:


> I honestly see no problem with it so long as nothing is legit being stolen. Some people just can't draw but are good with computer programs so why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to express themselves with the aid of AI?
> 
> Hell, i can't even do computer programs and would KILL for a easy and free to use one where I could just type in what I want and my AI friend will give it to me: sometimes you just want arts and don't really care where it came from.
> 
> Edit: Just want to make it clear that I'm JUST talking about AI generated art and not NFTs. I fucking HATE NFTs and anyone that likes them can burn in Hell.


Well all AI is trained using peoples subsets which unfortunately is gathering data from a piece of art scanning it.

Other note: Playstation patented an NFT thing... So if you don't want NFTs do not buy anything from the next sony console.


----------



## Deleted member 160111 (Nov 23, 2022)

Inferndragon said:


> Other note: Playstation patented an NFT thing... So if you don't want NFTs do not buy anything from the next sony console.


Wait, it's NFC.


----------



## Pomorek (Nov 23, 2022)

Vanessa Howl said:


> I honestly see no problem with it so long as nothing is legit being stolen. Some people just can't draw but are good with computer programs so why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to express themselves with the aid of AI?
> 
> Hell, i can't even do computer programs and would KILL for a easy and free to use one where I could just type in what I want and my AI friend will give it to me: sometimes you just want arts and don't really care where it came from.
> 
> Edit: Just want to make it clear that I'm JUST talking about AI generated art and not NFTs. I fucking HATE NFTs and anyone that likes them can burn in Hell.


Well, there's been a thing stolen. The right of individual creators to say NO to have their works digested by the AI system, and then potentially copied in various combinations by the users of that system. If this isn't high-tech thievery of intellectual property rights, then I don't know what else would be. 

To use a metaphor: if you'd employ an android to go and steal something for you, it doesn't stop being thievery.



Eyleifr said:


> Wait, it's NFC.


Yeah. Near Field Communication. Occasionally also known as Near Field Technology - so I personally was kind of surprised when NFT started meaning internet scam with ugly monkey pictures.


----------



## Vanessa Howl (Nov 23, 2022)

Inferndragon said:


> Well all AI is trained using peoples subsets which unfortunately is gathering data from a piece of art scanning it.
> 
> Other note: Playstation patented an NFT thing... So if you don't want NFTs do not buy anything from the next sony console.


Perhaps, but all you're doing is taking from their style and using it to create something original and that's no different than designing a fake Pokemon based on the actual Pokemon art style.


----------



## Vanessa Howl (Nov 23, 2022)

Pomorek said:


> Well, there's been a thing stolen. The right of individual creators to say NO to have their works digested by the AI system, and then potentially copied in various combinations by the users of that system. If this isn't high-tech thievery of intellectual property rights, then I don't know what else would be.
> 
> To use a metaphor: if you'd employ an android to go and steal something for you, it doesn't stop being thievery.
> 
> ...


That's a whole policy/legal thing, though and is something that I'm sure is something that doesn't HAVE to be part of process for it to work (it's just that most people making the programs don't care enough to). So long as a piece isn't being one for one copied OR the AI programmers are making money off it as a business (because free AI art generators DO exist) then at least I personally wouldn't count that as actually stealing since all things that belonged to the artist still belong to them. 

Thing about this whole thing is that it's new: VERY new. And because it's so new, the rules for what is seen as ok and what is not (both on a legal and moral standpoint) haven't been fully sorted out yet (remember when cyberbullying first became a big thing? There were debates on if it was even actually bullying or not much less and LEGAL actions being taken, but now we live in a time where cyberbullying is treated just as bad as IRL bullying and things you do online can get you in very REAL legal trouble now) so it's chaos until it is and because of that, many different opinions on the matter can and will also arise with no one who can OBJECTIVELY say if the opinion is fact or not. 

All and all, AI generated art hasn't been around long enough for anyone to say if it's objectively a bad thing that does nothing but steal things from artists because we've mostly only ever seen it be used for bad things and if we decide to just shut it all down entirely then we never give more honest people a chance to use the technology for good. 

I will say, though that NFTs by nature steal art (save for maybe the Neopets NFTs but that's just because they own all of it and did the laziest possible thing by just selling pets you can make for free on the site) since they not only take assets but sell them and sell them for a LOT (far more than the original artist would have been able to make off it) so it's 100% stealing. My biggest issue with NFTs, though are what they do to the planet: like, the art theft sucks and the elitism pisses me off but it's absolutely nothing compared to actively ruining a planet that's already so fucked up that we are looking for a new one. I hate NFTs so much, you have no idea (though The WWF have their own NFTs but use what they claim is a eco-friendly blockchain? I know absolutely nothing about any of this so I have no idea if that's possible or not but the money goes towards animal saving projects).


----------



## Pomorek (Nov 23, 2022)

Vanessa Howl said:


> That's a whole policy/legal thing, though and is something that I'm sure is something that doesn't HAVE to be part of process for it to work (it's just that most people making the programs don't care enough to). So long as a piece isn't being one for one copied OR the AI programmers are making money off it as a business (because free AI art generators DO exist) then at least I personally wouldn't count that as actually stealing since all things that belonged to the artist still belong to them.
> 
> Thing about this whole thing is that it's new: VERY new. And because it's so new, the rules for what is seen as ok and what is not (both on a legal and moral standpoint) haven't been fully sorted out yet (remember when cyberbullying first became a big thing? There were debates on if it was even actually bullying or not much less and LEGAL actions being taken, but now we live in a time where cyberbullying is treated just as bad as IRL bullying and things you do online can get you in very REAL legal trouble now) so it's chaos until it is and because of that, many different opinions on the matter can and will also arise with no one who can OBJECTIVELY say if the opinion is fact or not.
> 
> ...


On a topic like this, we can only agree to disagree. 

To summarize it as concisely as possible: it pisses me off that my art is being potentially used for something  which I don't agree with and I was never asked about it neither given any possibility to opt out. 

What's more: I'm also "secondarily pissed" for those who make a living off their art. Risk is that they will be blown out of the business since soon everyone and their mother will be able to auto-generate new images perfectly mimicking said artists. Which will render their specific abilities useless. And there wouldn't be such risk if their art hasn't been harvested and processed without their knowledge, let alone consent. People are basically punished for having their galleries online as it makes possible for everyone to make knockoffs of their art effortlessly, if not now then very soon. 

Sure, these probably are like woes of a 19-th century portrait artist confronted with photography. And there's nothing that can be done against this. But there's also nothing that will stop me from grumbling, growling & raising my yeen mane about it. 

Full agreement on NFT though. What's more, this thing is a complete scam. People seem to think they're paying for "art" or the right to use it - whereas what they purchase is actually a meaningless place in a database for which the "art" is only a marker. It's as if someone bought photo of a car online, thinking that they're buying the car itself. 

If you want a database, in a few clicks you can have one all for yourself and free.


----------



## Vanessa Howl (Nov 23, 2022)

Pomorek said:


> On a topic like this, we can only agree to disagree.
> 
> To summarize it as concisely as possible: it pisses me off that my art is being potentially used for something  which I don't agree with and I was never asked about it neither given any possibility to opt out.
> 
> ...


Indeed. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is not only the best route to take but the correct one: in this case, we're both coming at this issue from very different places (you as an artist and me as someone who knows what it's like to have billions of ideas in your head and no way to realize them) and that's ok cause we're totally different people.

And yeah, NFTs are nothing if not an absolute scam branding itself as a "get rich quick" scheme and then you get the suckers that fell for it acting like they are some brilliant investors and we sheep will never understand how ahead of the times these gods of the future are. The very concept if these things is deeply flawed on every level and I personally curse whoever invented it.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 23, 2022)

Pomorek said:


> I was never asked about it neither given any possibility to opt out.


I'm just picking this out because it was mentioned a few times before (I'm not trying to mess with you or pick on you specifically, just a stand-in for the general sentiment)

There's actually a way of opting out - It's not to upload.

I can get how this is problematic and I can get the upset behind the feeling that someone else is taking something very personal (I do art too) and uses it for something it wasn't intended as
But there's a fairly large blob of implications here, from things like fair use to derivative works, limits of copyright, etc - even a custom' style' is something that, for good reason, does not constitute a protected IP. 

There's also the fact that once a work is uploaded and put out into the open/out to the public the public can interact with it - and this, in a wider angle, is part of the interaction.

This also touches on the subject of 'what is art' which in itself is a question that has no clear defined answer (and thus the question of if the machine is actually creating art or not will remain unanswered) and socio-economic discussions on what this will do to our perception of art (and what it will actually be used for in the end)


----------



## Pomorek (Nov 23, 2022)

ConorHyena said:


> I'm just picking this out because it was mentioned a few times before (I'm not trying to mess with you or pick on you specifically, just a stand-in for the general sentiment)
> 
> There's actually a way of opting out - It's not to upload.
> 
> ...


True that. I understand that by publishing a thing, one releases a good deal of control to the public, not to be ever regained again.

This may well be pretty illogical stance from me, but I'm not much upset with more _traditional_ implications of that. Say, if someone takes some of my works and uses them in a calendar for example. It wouldn't make me super happy, especially if it was a paid calendar and someone was profitting from my work - but if it happened somewhere far away and I had no means of interfering, I'd go "_oh well"_  then. I could even reinterpret it as an inconvenient form of flattery. (Also not to be the one who only sees splinters in everyone else's eyes, it's not like I never ever downloaded something I shouldn't...)

Something like that might even have happened to me although I have no hard proof. A couple of years ago it was brought to my attention that a brand of houseplant fertilizer in the UK uses a picture for their package which is suspiciously similar to one of my orchid photos I have on DeviantArt. I saw it online and it _really_ looked like it. But yes, having no proof neither means to do anything I basically remained unmoved by this occurence, and even a little flattered actually that they decided to use my picture, of all things... even if it was without any permission not to mention royalty. 

But this AI thing, I can't motivate it logically neither hinge it legally anyhow, but damn it, this sits so wrong with me. And I'm not even much upset about my own art (someone wants more of this very niche topic of photorealistic furry gals than I can personally deliver? go ahead bro, I guess...) but more in general, somehow. Maybe because this whole thing carries the risk for art to become a needless skill - and personally, I'm an unfortunate master of skills needless and knowledge useless, therefore I sympathize. 

Yet with all that said...


Vanessa Howl said:


> Indeed. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is not only the best route to take but the correct one: in this case, we're both coming at this issue from very different places (you as an artist and me as someone who knows what it's like to have billions of ideas in your head and no way to realize them) and that's ok cause we're totally different people.
> 
> And yeah, NFTs are nothing if not an absolute scam branding itself as a "get rich quick" scheme and then you get the suckers that fell for it acting like they are some brilliant investors and we sheep will never understand how ahead of the times these gods of the future are. The very concept if these things is deeply flawed on every level and I personally curse whoever invented it.


You should have begun with that thing about coming from different places, it adds much perspective for me. I was also in this place of having the ideas but no means of realizing them. I solved it for myself through the 3D tech, so someone might say that I shouldn't be lashing out at AI as my own art is "made by machines" as well. Which is true to a significant extent, the nerdy tech is for me a crutch enabling me to make art that I wouldn't be able to make otherwise. Except there is a lot of my own work involved regardless (just quite drastically different from anything you'd call drawing), and I typically don't hide it when I use external resources. 

This indeed is a plague unto its own in the 3D world, there's a ton of rather crappy art built of preexisting ready-mades. But I'm using such stuff sparingly, mostly in the form of textures from relevant 3D sites, and generally give credit where due. So contrary to those AI projects I'm not simply helping myself to other people's works indiscriminately like that. 

Now, I can imagine the appeal of those AI image generators for people without artistic skills. This does not remove my "grumbly opinion" (if that's even a word...) about their dishonest origins and troubling potential. But I can see better just _why_ this is a thing and how it can have value for many.


Also in general, just to clarify - I have no problem with calling these AI products _art_. There's nothing that says art can't be produced through shady means.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 23, 2022)

Pomorek said:


> But this AI thing, I can't motivate it logically neither hinge it legally anyhow, but damn it, this sits so wrong with me. And I'm not even much upset about my own art (someone wants more of this very niche topic of photorealistic furry gals than I can personally deliver? go ahead bro, I guess...) but more in general, somehow. Maybe because this whole thing carries the risk for art to become a needless skill - and personally, I'm an unfortunate master of skills needless and knowledge useless, therefore I sympathize.


This, of course, is legitimate. We all get older, and we get grumbly about things. I also do this, of course.


----------



## Rimna (Nov 23, 2022)

AI can succ it boi, won't be so tough when I pour a glass of water over it and it fries.

But yeah, it's probably going to get to a point where it will create art better and faster than most artists. It's a piece of shit and I don't like it.


----------



## Vanessa Howl (Nov 23, 2022)

Pomorek said:


> True that. I understand that by publishing a thing, one releases a good deal of control to the public, not to be ever regained again.
> 
> This may well be pretty illogical stance from me, but I'm not much upset with more _traditional_ implications of that. Say, if someone takes some of my works and uses them in a calendar for example. It wouldn't make me super happy, especially if it was a paid calendar and someone was profitting from my work - but if it happened somewhere far away and I had no means of interfering, I'd go "_oh well"_  then. I could even reinterpret it as an inconvenient form of flattery. (Also not to be the one who only sees splinters in everyone else's eyes, it's not like I never ever downloaded something I shouldn't...)
> 
> ...


My sage wisdom tends to pop up on it's own.XD

But yeah, like I simply CAN'T draw so I turn mainly to character creators to help me piece together something at least somewhat like what I had in mind (and there is a certain amount of effort and art that goes into it anyway since it's all about working within the limits of the creator and pumping out something that looks great and original all on it's own: my last creation was random idea I had that ended up turning into a half yuan ti/half human princess who has been told her whole life that she is a monster and has to hide it at all costs but one night at a ball she falls in love with a young and handsome lord and for the first time ever she takes off the porcelain mask she NEVER takes off in public but the lord rejects her as the monster she was always told she was and after the rest of the party guests learn of this she is cased out of and banished from her own kingdom and now travels the lands with mask always on, looking for somewhere she can truly call home).

It's not like I don't understand the issues but my point is that for someone like me who can't just draw whatever they want and aren't skilled enough at technology to make anything from scratch using that, having an AI where you could just type in what you want and get it or perhaps simply find something that matches (like the chaos that is This Fursona Does Not Exist) would be a God send for getting all those ideas out so everyone demonizing it as being this naturally horrible evil strikes a bit if a nerve since I know that if I had access to it, I would be nothing less than grateful that it exists. 

But again, very different places and with something like this EVERYONE is working off personal biases.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 25, 2022)

The researchers who helped create and train AIs must find their reception of social media an endless source of excitement and dismay.



Pomorek said:


> Something like that might even have happened to me although I have no hard proof. A couple of years ago it was brought to my attention that a brand of houseplant fertilizer in the UK uses a picture for their package which is suspiciously similar to one of my orchid photos I have on DeviantArt. I saw it online and it _really_ looked like it.



There was once a newspaper which published a picture of a drunken student that looked exactly like me, and I had to do hours of cross-checking the original source to confirm I hadn't blacked out and embarrassed myself.


----------



## DorjeStego (Nov 30, 2022)

AI art is still far from being a production-ready technology. And the examples I've seen, tend to be very lacking. Case in point.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598051098224312321


----------



## Deleted member 162282 (Nov 30, 2022)

It exists, it has real world uses for artists, such as bashing out ideas, early concepts etc. However there is a lot of legal and ethical stuff that needs to be worked out over the years. So my stance on it at the moment is (Meh). I like the technology, I don't like how it's being trained.


----------



## Amepix Will Win (Nov 30, 2022)

I really do feel like at somepoint, the only jobs will be programmers to make the AI work


----------



## Deleted member 162282 (Nov 30, 2022)

Amepix said:


> I really do feel like at somepoint, the only jobs will be programmers to make the AI work


Don't worry, like many programs developed by people, AI still needs a creative behind it, otherwise it will just pump out generic boring stuff.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 30, 2022)

@DorjeStego That is actually an almost-ready image. It just needs to be cleaned up by a person, and then it would be useable.


----------



## ssaannttoo (Nov 30, 2022)

I think this is a super interesting subject, for a lot of different reasons.

(1) The fact that technology is getting to the point where you can get some really cool looking surrealistic pieces is awesome. Despite the fears that Skynet will be a thing these kinds of predictive technologies can innovate the medical field, help analyze forrests and natural habitats, as well as make more accurate market decisions to better assist in overall quality of life 'upgrades'.

(2) The possible ethical problems this can face. The first point that was made was how a deceased artist style was being replicated by an AI. If we look at art styles through the lenses of patents then yeah I see how that can be questionable. However artists currently take inspiration or practice other artists styles to try and look like their artwork. It isn't inherently a bad thing. If you are using AI to create a style of art then claim the piece to be made by said artist that is a different can of worms.

(3) The worry that AI will put artists out of business. Im sorta on the fence about this. On one hand I dont think AI will ever remove the need for artists. Even now there is the 'artisanal' crafting of things that can easily be done on an assembly line, however there is a bit of a perceived quality or luxury of having something made by another person. TWO people will continue to exist and IF AI happens to overwhelm the market by storm and furry commissioners no longer need Furry Artists there are still jobs or skillsets that come from that profession that can be applied to other fields. Teaching AI things about art, making examples. That is also really important about AI, its always leaning, there is always new things to try or discover or styles that can be created or developed.

While AI will change things expecially as the technology developed I don't think it will be _bad_ it will be _different_ its just how we deal with it when it comes and better evaluating the effects instead of speculating about what could happen.


----------



## MrArborsexual (Dec 3, 2022)

Amepix said:


> I really do feel like at somepoint, the only jobs will be programmers to make the AI work


We'll still need good programmers to double/triple check the AI output, at least in code and related fields. Whenever an AI outputs something, right or wrong, it is always fully confident in the output.

In the art world, there will still be demand for real artists, even if for no other reason than to say you purchased artwork from a real artist. This isn't the best comparison but it is kinda like how digital watches and phones have not completely elimintated demand for mechanical wrist and pocket watches. Hell even machine stampable mechanical watch designs have not eliminated demand for handmade pieces (which are surprisingly affordable if you really value your tiny clockwork tic-toks).


----------



## ConorHyena (Dec 4, 2022)

Amepix said:


> I really do feel like at somepoint, the only jobs will be programmers to make the AI work


Technology only ever works at 50% promised capacity when it collides with the real world.


----------



## Amepix Will Win (Dec 4, 2022)

ConorHyena said:


> Technology only ever works at 50% promised capacity when it collides with the real world.


And that's why the programmers are the only job. To make the AI work.


----------



## ConorHyena (Dec 4, 2022)

Amepix said:


> And that's why the programmers are the only job. To make the AI work.


_but it never does_


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Dec 4, 2022)

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then there's no going around the fact AI art is valid







 This was AI generated and it's the most thought provoking piece of art I've seen in a while, fite me snobs


----------



## WanderingAimlessly (Dec 5, 2022)

As someone who actively does use an AI art generator I believe that as long as you 
A. Aren't using it for commercial purposes
B. Aren't playing if off as real (Non-AI) art
C. Are only using it for personal purposes (i.e. wallpaper) 

Obv next issue is the fact that all weights out there are using "stolen" artwork but I doubt you could get every artist that has ever uploaded on Danbooru or whereever you are sourcing your images from to agree to you using their art.


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Dec 5, 2022)

When artists overall put restrictions higher (price, follows, etc), AI arts are gonna devour the 'market' (if we can call it so then) because accessibility; when artists lower the price overall, they're either gonna starve or be exhausted by the greater quantity needed.
The AI tech--while yet imperfect--could be the 'terminator' of this.

Everything's got the time to fade, and I think now it's the turn for artists, including myself.

However, considering AIs belong to certain developers and/or providers (companies or groups) thus they(who are also humans) shall be the one who'll act similar behaviors as indie artists. So, the AI vs indie artists thingy shall go somewhat even, I suppose.
Yet I'm not gonna deny it's likely chopping off many artists before things get clear and settled.

Anyways, I just don't want my stuff to be stolen or whatever in that terms.. at the very least.


----------



## Amepix Will Win (Dec 5, 2022)

And we all know that the companies will just use the AI to make art for them instead of hiring an artist.

I hate the world sometimes


----------

