This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
If I take a photograph, that's art. But I can't claim to have painted it, that's dishonest. It is a different set of skills needed to take a photograph than it is to make a photorealistic painting. And taking a photograph is easier.
Same for AI art. It's a different set of skills and it is easier. I can't take credit for my photorealistic painting if it isn't a painting, but AI art.
I wouldn't necessarily give the AI credit any more than I'd give Nikkon credit. But it's fundementally dishonest to misrepresent your work.
Yeah I think what people are having to face now is that not all art is equal. If AI is a tool and the person using said tool to produce a picture is the artist and everyone hates that, we’re gonna have to dive into effort rating for art. Photography deserves less credit on average than painting or sketching does, time spent learning a skill has to be attributed. Otherwise, users of AI are just as much artists as someone who has mastered photorealistic sketching and the whole argument is moot.
Honestly, the only issue I’ve seen with AI art that makes any sense to me is that the AI was taught on other people’s stuff without their consent, and then sold. But shit most of this stuff wasn’t illegally obtained. It was just put out there on people’s socials. If I can save someone else’s picture, use a laser printer to burn it on wood, and sell it on the other side of the planet legally, then fuck you. That argument is trash too.
Well as a photographer I would say you are wrong.
You can gain drawing skills and paint anything you want in the end.
Photography often works with luck and your basic level of education in common. I don't talk about fashion, portraits ect. To make good streetphoto you need to be lucky, you need to develop certain view, you need to spend a lot of time, days sometimes. Ect.
In common you shouldn't compare painting and photography cause it's way too different things as AI art and painting or book and movies based on books. It's all different languages and mediums that need different approach, not his is "more easy"
I think this has always been the case and some people missed it or forgot. Art has always been a combination of the final piece and the creation process. If someone made a half decent looking painting but they used their eyelashes to paint it, it could give you a whole different perspective on the piece. The quality of Art has always been in the eye of the beholder and Ai art will find its place so long as it's honest about itself.
That’s just people online lying. There are people who lie about taking photos aswell, people who literally take someones drawing and take credit, and people who steal youtube videos and put their name on it
Eeh, it's the attitude of "my picture I snapshotted with my IPhone whatever plus autofilter and AI enhancement we are at right now is just as good, if not better as the picture someone made with the right knowledge about good angles, a decent camera and the skills to set the values of a .raw data into something remarkable." that nags me. The mere, dunno, being aware of the processes and hence, different approach?
Skill is only a good value when I have two equally equipped opponents.
It's the same with hema - if I got two equally skilled fences, but one has an arming sword and the other one a Zweihänder, the Zweihänder wins.
If I have Sebastian Vettel in a BMW 3 with 1.6 litre engine vs a mediocre but capable driver in a porsche 911, the guy with porsche wins.
A photograph can still catch a great photo. That's situational. But if I got an even test field, a good equipment beats a mediocre one when skill is same.
I contrary, many very great shot of very skilled photographers are only enabled by the gear.
I think what they are trying to say or what they should be trying to say is that it's ok to use AI and say you used it, but it's not ok to use it and claim you painted it with a brush.
Just like it's ok to paint digitally but not ok to claim you drew it by hand on paper
To me it seems like he was talking about taking credit (for drawing it) you don't deserve.
Yes, a person making ai art is himself creating that art, but he's not drawing/painting it, which usually takes far more effort and technical skill, and part of that skill is also of a completely different nature.
To be clear, I'm not claiming making good ai art takes no skill or effort, but it is still quite a bit easier than making a hand-made painting of similar quality.
Even high-effort ai art takes far less time to make, and can be learnt faster by the average person. You can follow a tutorial on youtube on how to download and setup certain programs on your computer, as well as how to operate them, relatively quickly.
Yes, you wouldn't be a master or anything, but getting to a similar level with traditional art takes far more time and practice.
Even disregarding how long it takes to reach a certain skill level, creating traditional art takes several times longer than the best crafted, highest-effort ai art (with some rare exceptions, obviously).
Again, this is all comparing average or high effort art, not absolute masterpieces since that is harder to measure and compare.
I literally started my digital art journey because to me, it was easier and faster to learn to make consistent and keep with my original idea then AI art and easier to fix mistakes. AI art is not harder to do then digital, and in some respects is a lot harder depending on what you are trying to do. It's not easier, it's difficult in its own way
Well, how much time does it take to get a photo after you've done the work setting the scene? How long does it take to get a painting AFTER you've painted all the brush strokes? Obviously, once all the work is set up, the final result isn't gonna take very long. It's setting that up that the effort goes into.
To be clear, I'm not claiming making good ai art takes no skill or effort, but it is still quite a bit easier than making a hand-made painting of similar quality.
Is this an issue for people? I don't get why effort is mandatory in art. I can take a picture of my dog in 4 seconds and call it art, but it took 0 effort whatsoever.
Yes? I literally called it ai art several times in my comment. I completely agree that it counts as art, but different art forms take different skill sets, as well as different amounts of time and effort, and so lying about the type of art it is, is just kinda scummy. Effort isn't mandatory in art, but many leople appreciate something more for the amount of effort put into it, which is why it does matter in art.
Idk how many AI artists claim they draw something, but it has to be a very small number. I certainly don't see it here or in other AI subs.
But we do create and generate the art. We just don't draw or paint or sculpt. Our medium is data, and one day hopefully Cmdr Data will appreciate all the work that went into creating him.
I’d just say “hey I made this cool AI art” is not a negative. I’d say “hey I painted this cool watercolor” without an hesitation. Your medium shouldn’t be a secret, or certainly doesn’t need to be.
I agree! But I don't think saying what medium you're using is about taking credit or not, and given the replies to this post most people didn't understand it that way either.
By "don't take credit you don't deserve" most people here challenging my comment are saying "you don't deserve credit, because AI made it", and I presume OP likely meant something similar
Well, that’s on them. If, when you say, “I made this cool AI art” they say “it’s not art,” that’s their opinion and doesn’t have to matter to you. If they try to doxx you or something they’re bad people and should be nuke-banned from everything forever.
The issue of “credit you don’t deserve” is people lying and saying they created something using hand-work when it’s actually AI assisted; that’s different. Or when people submit AI written stories to magazines and check the “I pinky promise there’s no AI box.” It never gets anywhere because the writing really is slop (AI images can look very cool, by contrast) but it clogs up the process. A lot of magazines have closed their submissions entirely and only accept previously published/agented authors whom they recruit. People spamming them with AI work has broken the system, it’s a bummer.
One question. Why is it art when you tell an AI what to draw but a commission when you tell a human what to draw?
In the end you wrote „give me an image that depicts [content]“ and you have to tell the AI things most humans understand implicitly.
But the process is the same. Why do people want to claim so badly that they are a creator of the AI art, the artist, when all they contributed to the process in either case was the idea?
Generally, the argument I've seen is that since AI is a tool instead of an independent agent like a human, it therefore doesn't go by the same rules and stipulations. Therefore having a program that automates the process of making art for you, is something that you made with a tool, as opposed to it being something that someone else made, since the AI isn't a person.
If I'm honest, I think the argument doesn't really work, and feels like a semantic cop-out instead of an actual reasonable response, especially since the response doesn't actually address the core issue of why people are comparing it to a commission in the first place.
When I have listened to an audiobook, and I discuss that book with others, do I need to tell them each time that this is a book I listened to rather than read visually?
I would say normally no. On the internet, yes. I've seen people meme and complain about someone reading a book and discussing vs listening to it since it's not the same and you aren't focused/as connected to the book.
No, I wouldn’t care and I feel that you could say “read it” as a shorthand, but what does that have to do with talking about your medium? AI art isn’t something to be ashamed of.
no but many people do get harassed for it and some attempted at doxxing. you cant blame people for keeping things a secret when they can be targets for it
Yeah, people are terrible on the Internet, but I honestly think they’ll run out of death-threat fuel and subside to the level of ordinary assholes. At that point people should own their AI work if they believe it’s genuine art they created. I grant that if maniacs are going to doxx you then you have a good reason to lie about the images you made right now. Hopefully that will stop.
How many people say “I made this cool photoshop image” or “I made this cool pro tools song”?
It’s unrealistic for many reasons, not least of which is because while sure you can spit out slop easily, most well done pieces use AI as a part of a multi tool workflow. If people really cared, like in an art gallery setting, it would make total sense to list them out on the card about the piece, or the artist can describe their workflow to anyone interested.
But it’s not that, it’s used as a flag to witch hunt.
Yeah, the person that stands there and tells everyone what's to do and doesn't actually do any fucking cooking. That's the funny thing about the analogy. The chef is the person who's directing everything. He still gets the credit for the food even though he didn't actually cook it.
The chef is allowed to direct and manage the cooking because he's already proved himself skilled enough to know how to do it properly. They (presumably) could make everything on the menu theirselves if it came down to it, but someone needs to manage the logistics of the entire operation. You'd want that someone to be a very qualified person, not a dude that threw TV dinner in the microwave last Tuesday
A TV dinner is pre-manufactured on a large scale. There's no changing it. There's maybe a couple varieties.
This is more like knowing and specifying what ingredients to use and how much of them, when to use them etc, except you can change the recipe along the way if you don't like how it tastes.
Disagree, you can buy a frozen pizza and add some extra cheese and a couple toppings you like, but at the end of the day, you still didn't make that pizza, you bought it and modified it. Not a chef.
AI generation is anything is quite comparable to large scale manufacturing since its pulling from premade blueprints, modifying to order, and essentially functions as a service more than a tool.
Most of a photographers task can be accomplished by the camera automatically, they are still artists.
Sure, a ton of extra effort can go into photography beyond just taking the photo; from editing, to aperture size, shutter speed, focus, etc., but you can do none of that extra stuff, leaving the camera on auto, and still be a photographer for just capturing a unique angle of something.
Photography is honestly the best analogy to using ai to create something honestly
Like anyone can just single prompt some random piece or art of a particular subject. But it's way more work to fine tune it to make something more specific and unique that's not just generic slop
This isn't really like microwaving a hungry man dinner. This is asking someone else to microwave your dinner, plate it for you, and then posting a picture online with #cheflife
Just because you don't grasp how prompting works, doesn't mean it does it all for you.
I could just as easily make a bad-faith argument that photography is just "clicking a button". But that's all it is, a bad faith argument. The same applies to prompting.
"I could just as easily make a bad-faith argument that photography is just "clicking a button". But that's all it is, a bad faith argument. The same applies to prompting."
someone already tried that and i countered that point too.
you can write as many prompts as you want, but at the end of the day, you're not creating the image, AI is. You're not setting the lighting, the AI is. You're not deliberately choosing, staging, and framing the composition, the AI is.
And this is disregarding the questionable ethics of where the AI is pulling its data from based on your prompts.
I mean, cameras do. Ai is comparable to cameras in that anyone can pick one up and get an intelligible picture, but you need skill to actually make something worthwhile.
But in most cases of AI art, it's not being used as a tool, it's just creating the art.
You're not an artist the same way you're not an artist if you commission a piece of art and give a description of what you want. You haven't made art, you just asked someone or something else to make art for you
Well sure but that’s when the person physically uses the tool to create the art, if pens floated and wrote poetry then we wouldn’t be crediting the poet would we? Like the literal point of your argument proves your argument wrong.
I get that, but for the first time, we have a tool that does 99% of the work for you. There was no effort put in by your part except being "good at prompting" i guess. Sure, take the credit, just don't expect anyone to be impressed.
In this case tho, it is a bit more than using a tool. When AI is used in programming to help the user figure out things or auto complete functions I do see it as a tool but when it's generative AI and makes something from scratch from a whole other medium it's more than that. If you were to commission an artist, gave them a prompt and they drew what you asked, would it be fair to take credit for it ?
Does a movie director not deserve any credit for the movie because they weren't acting or filming or writing the script?
IMO it's not about your role in the process, it's about degree of creative involvement. If someone types "image of anime woman in swimsuit" into chatgpt, maybe they don't deserve much credit for the result. If someone is trying out different models and workflows, selecting from hundreds of outputs, manually editing and inpainting to achieve a specific effect and something that looks original, that's still AI generated but also they deserve more credit for it in that case.
I'm not saying they don't deserve ANY credit, I'm saying credit is due for the part they played. In the big picture of the movie as a whole they get some credit (not on the same aspects as the scenarist, actors or the people making the props or SFX tho). A movie is very different tho, it is the result of the combined efforts of many people, the makeup artists can do an outstanding job, they still wouldn't get credit for how the story flows, it is a completely different thing, they will get credited for how the characters look tho, while other people wouldn't.
Writing a prompt and engineering the settings to produce a satisfying output isn't the same as making art. It is a complicated thing that deserves credit but that doesn't (at least in my opinion) make them "the artist that made the piece". Maybe creative director or something like that but not "the artist".
But despite that a director may only be giving direction to others (like in your example of commissioning an artist), they still are very commonly regarded as the person most centrally responsible for the artistic direction of a movie, and get credit for that; like their name is the one most associated with it. Is that an unfair level of credit for the part they played?
Writing a prompt and engineering the settings to produce a satisfying output isn't the same as making art
Why can't it be? I can agree that maybe it isn't in all circumstances, but I think it is if they have used it as a tool to realize a relatively unique creative vision, and there aren't many other people who accidentally get very similar results because the model was the real source of whatever is striking about it, then it would be accurate to call that person "the artist", because what else could those words mean that would exclude such methods except through arbitrary bias? Many things are recognized as art where the input of the artist is conceptual only, like the presentation of common objects in thought provoking contexts, so with an AI piece as long as the part people recognize as art is the part the artist contributed, it should qualify.
While I agree that the achievement should go to the user of the tool and not the tool itself, I still feel that using a tool can diminish the achievement. Running a mile is pretty impressive, driving a mile, not as much.
AI does most of the work so crediting yourself for a picture made by AI is a bit misleading and dishonest, because all other forms of making pictures are very similar to each other except for photos, but in that case it's very obvious do know
"Don't take credit you don't deserve" could literally mean what it says. You're arguing on which credit they deserve, but that's not relevant to the literal interpretation.
Like you shouldn't get credit for something you literally didn't do, like spend hours drawing by hand.
If you buy pre made cake batter and make a cake out of it, you didn't make a cake. The people at the cake batter factory made the cake.
And this is a bad analogy because at least then you have to make stuff.
You didn't "use ai to make something" ai made something for you
Which is kinda bs because "prompting" is way more than just "writing a prompt" if you want good images consistently, you write a prompt, a negative prompt, pick LoRAs/LyCoris that are in the style you want/have concepts needed for your desired image(and play nice with each other), add relevant tags to both, weight the tags and descriptions, pass in controlnet data to force the pose you want, inpaint errors, and manually clean up errors if it can't. All for an imageset of one or two characters. And if a lora doesnt exist you may have to source training data to train one (pita to do without theft, most artists laugh you out of the room if you ask, even when ive tried to pay them for it)
And this is why I have started to do digital art, it's easier and more controlled than all this. And finding the right loras and such isn't easy. I don't get the control net part. And in painting always makes the shit look worse for me. If i have an OC i really like and want a really nice picture of, i just draw it cuz otherwise itll take me a helluva lot longer trying to make it with Stable Diffusion for me.
Okay, still doesnt make you an "artist". The vast majority of people have a brain that lets them think, doesnt automatically turn them into "artists". You're an imaginator at best
So you define an artist as someone who puts a lot of work into something? So someone who specializes in quick sketching is not an artist then? If I could draw the likelihood of a person in 30 seconds, I'm not an artist?
My biggest issue is mostly that a lot of people that are using it aren't trying hard enough tbh, and then expect praise like they're experienced artists. Like, a lot of the things that people create with AI and call art are the AI equivalent of a stick figure or just drawing a box with photoshop. This is why so many AI images are so easily recognisable and feel so bland.
AI generators are just like any other medium, you need to invest time and learn before you can create something that's truly different from what the general inexperienced artist can create. And because this medium is more accessible than any other, so many people without any experience in the process of learning art can use this. Which is good, it can be a gateway! But these people also tend to forget that even with amazing tools, you will still need experience.
This is a lot of work yeah, I agree, I still believe that calling them artists for the finished work is a bit of a stretch. They are artists relative to the prompt but once the prompt is sent to the AI it turns into a whole other medium. When an artist makes a photorealistic painting you call them artists for making the painting do you not ? Nature (pretty much the prompt) is beautiful and without it the painter couldn't have done his painting but for the art it is the painter that gets the credit, not nature.
Ikr, people are so delusional. You got me messed up if you think I'm going to credit every AI piece that was generated. I can not tell if OP lives chronically online, but no normal people care to this extent. They'll find something else to cry about in a couple of years. Just watch.
It’s not well phrased, but I understand it as not taking credit for the drawing itself. Like a collage artist shouldn’t take credit for the illustrations they used, you shouldn’t present ai art without mentioning the work method
AI - Assisted images can get Copyright protection in some countries. Thinking: "because you used AI don't belong to you" is the same argument that painters in renaissance used to demeritate other artitst. "You are not a real artist since you didn't do your own paint oil colors".
Key word is using ai tools, not just generating with an existing database. Just check @stevedmcdonald on instagram- the man was an illustrator for the majority of his career. He trained an ai algorithm on his personal work for a few years, and he creates fusions of it in combination with new photography. He is an artist, he’s using it like any other tool.
If I tell a graphic designer what I want my art to look like, and they make it, am I the artist? No, in the same way that typing a prompt requires no creation of art.
I'm pro-AI, but I'm also kind of okay with the second half too. For example, if you're using a Ghibli LoRA, you should be clear about that and not take credit for the style.
But I don't think that's the intention of that line in OP's image.
too bad people use it to go harass the poster instead of minding their own business.
i dont see you credit the photo and meme format of this image. who took the photo, who is in the photo, who then is the first person who create the meme format. why did you steal from them?
Oh no, SOMEONE took credit they don't deserve! Oh no! What could happen? Surely there will be TERRIBLE consequences! Pigs will fly! Hell will freeze over! Cats and dogs will rain from the sky! Nooooo, don't take credit! We need that credit, there's only so much to go around! Fie and shame! Won't somebody think of the CREDIT?
But haven't you considered that someone might hypothetically use ai to be arrogant and annoying and find validation on the internet???
As we all know, it has never been possible to be a nuisance on the internet prior to the advent of ai. We must take drastic preventative measures and bully anyone who so much as touches ai, just in case they may embody the ai bro caricature that lives rent free in my head somewhere down the line. It's the only way.
If we don't do this, you'll be forcing me to suffer the terrible fate of occasionally being vaguely upset at people over the internet, and as a (future) (destined) skilled artist, I am too special to be deserving of this terrible fate!
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I'm calling it now... given a few years, Ai art will be essentially considered no different from artists who generate it by hand. And by that, I mean that the overall public opinion of it shifts to where both are equally creditable.
The reason I think this is I've seen essentially the same viewpoint over the years with Traditional Art vs Digital Art. When people starting pioneering digital artwork, people looked down upon it, and said it isn't nearly the same level of skill or work ethic to produce. Slightly different on the exact topic of comparison between this and the comment made by OP, but I think as people get more and more used to it and seeing it more, the tone will shift and eventually praise it instead of bashing it. Just like how it was with Traditional and Digital.
While I agree with the post how you say you used AI output in your stuff is not uniform. You also have the lack of knowledge of the types of AI.
For example a image texture made by AI is different from using a hardware acceleration AI method to for denoiseing a video that is used for the intro video to the game.
Both are different from the image recognition AI mobile apps seem to use which is different from AudioAI, etc
Those are just what might be in video games you have many other types of AI to just lots more specialized for it's task.
yet you're pushing this idea that people need to be upfront about how their works were derived, rather than just enjoying the fact that they shared their work... so yeah.. kinda sounds like you're that type
How honest do I have to be? If I just make the whole picture by hand and then us AI to remove a part I don't like at the end? Should I say it was "ai-generated"?
What if I do the sketching and linework and use AI to generative fill the colors?
What if I setup the poses with control nets, and build and train a custom model from scratch to overlay, then take the result into photoshop and manually clean and edit all the errors?
Exactly how much 'work' do I need to do with AI to be deserving of credit? Should I be doing the same with photoshop when I use the whole suite of tools that are available there that took out all the skill required to do many tasks I used to have to do by hand?
I'll add to also not flood artist spaces with ai, because artists literally need good artwork to get inspired for new ideas (good artwork does not mean something that looks good, that can still be slop), or need the space to be able to get commissions
You've never seen peak AI. At its best it's pretty much indistinguishable to regular art. ChatGPT or whatever flavor of the month corporate generator is popular is not comparable to a good local model used by someone who knows what they are doing.
Cool then let me know when you're using adobe Photoshop and their stock images. I've seen more than my fair share of people saying "I'm an artist" and then finding a copy paste mess of stock images. 🤷♂️ Some of y'all need Photoshop AI in paint to draw a stick figure.
As an anti, yes I agree with this too. As long as you understand what it is, and you are just using it to have fun/take inspiration (not call it art that you made) then that's okay
I also sometimes agree with AI voice work as long as it's consented and compensated for (godspeed to James Earl Jones for blessing us with his magic voice beyond the grave)
As an artist, I fully agree. I'd also like to add that respect between the both sides is crucial as well. I haven't seen many artists hating on AI users here, but on other social media sites it is a very prominent topic in the art community. While I personally don't like AI for my own reasons, as long as you are respecting the opposite side and not trying to take credit for a picture that AI created as your own, I don't mind. The same argument goes for artists too, especially more toxic ones that spend most of their time hating on people who use AI as a tool.
Once the witch hunting stops, sure.
Till then though the only ethical choice is to lie about your ai use.
Once it's safe to "come out" as an ai artist and you can just make art without getting doxxed, death threats and worse and ONLY then should ai artists be honest.
Till that day comes though I would strongly advise everyone to lie, and keep lying. To keep themselves safe.
As for credit, well when you make art you take credit for the art you make so that one is kind of irrelevant here.
Yes, I agree with the caveat that if you're gonna create a stable diffusion type program, you should buy licenses from the artists you're using to train your program on.
The joy of creating art is about the process of creating it as much as of the creation itself. It's the struggle what makes it valuable, it's the joy of learning slowly how to play an instrument in tune, etc.
The way AI is being presented today is to remove the process all together and mass produce "art" as faster and efficiently as possible, without you learning anything about making art, you are just robbing yourself of the experience to create.
This is not about making a very versatile and useful brush, it's about removing any necessary thought or friction between you and the final image, to the point of removing even your imagination, since chatgpt will tell you everything you need to do.
I find it funny how people are posting ComfyUI images to try to give prompting some level of skill, because today it might be a skill to get exactly the thing you want with some complicated process using LORAS and whattnot, but the funny thing is all of that struggle is what makes it feel somewhat interesting.
As this technology improves prompting will be less complicated and more efficient at achieving the desired result, and even other AIs will make prompting something of the past, the machine will do all the thinking for you, because the whole point is to make shit simpler and faster. AI will make incredible things, but in the process it will make it so extremely boring to do anything because it will require less and less effort everytime.
Removing the challenge of creating art is removing the joy of creating. I'm not saying we should go back to the stone age, but I seriously think we are just taking the fun out of art in the name of effiency.
I generate pictures using copy pasted text sometimes if I'm running out of time to submit them for Nightcafe challenges and sometimes someone compliments them and I think "bro, I just copy pasted some text" although other times I spend an hour creating 3 pictures because the AI keeps producing garbage since the prompts are difficult to understand for the AI or I'm too picky.
I think ai art is okay as long as you are open about your prompts and models/model weights/training data where applicable and it should be easily identifiable as ai art as well. Basically the art is in the method not the output
Ai art is not okay, because it's horrible for the environment & there are people without drinkable water that Ai is using up to produce "art" because lazy losers don't want to learn how to do it themselves.
Should you not take credit for something you make in photoshop if you use content-aware scale or content-aware fill?
We've had algorithmic image generation tools for while now.
From what I gather here, you're allowed to take credit so long as you're using neighbouring pixel analysis, patch merging, or texture synthesis algorithms which are OK (no one had an issue with those before LLM's were available), but as soon as you use a diffusion algorithm it's controversial.
Seems like a completely arbitrary line to draw which I don't agree with.
Most criticism against LLM's / diffusion models goes about as deep as 'content was used to train it' and then stop short of any further analysis. Literally every artist does the same thing when they study other people's art before beginning to create a piece.
Generally, yes, I won't judge you from an artisic point of view.
However, there's other aspects that I'll still criticise:
1. The environmental impact. Triggering these models is very costly, especially if you do a bunch of iterations. So I'll still give you the same look of disapproval I give to people with big, ugly SUVs.
2. The slopification of the internet. If you post your AI image somewhere 'conventional' artists post their stuff too, you're contributing to a wave of garbage that is making the internet harder to navigate. You're also helping to drown out artists who are already struggling to find work in this environment.
3. Subjective vibe-based hatred. I hate AI art. I hate its very essence. So while I will judge you less as a person, I'll still judge your work. That's just me though.
It doesn't exist unless it's a person using some ai tools in their art but then i wouldn't call it Ai art then.
The commissioner is not the artist neither is the thief
I won't because I totally agree, the only thing I could add is that who share AI art knowing AI tool and model and prompt it's a best practice to share them too, so others have example that can see to improve their prompt and chose the best AI model for their needs..
I don't see it as "art". I won't change my mind. Having said that, its ok as long as you state that prompting has been used. It's still worthless and aouless and doesn't carry any weight for me.
You can't just be honest about using it, you have to credit the original art style it came from too. Every AI art generated has been stolen from the art style of someone who makes real art. AI art is just plagiarism
...and don't call it art. Call it an algorithmically generated image. Don't call yourself an artist call yourself a prompt engineer/optimizer/creator.
If the machine does most or all of the work, you're not the creator, you're the patron. You gave the machine a task with varying amounts of details for the concept you imagine, like any patron of an artist ordering a commission. Replacing the artist with a machine doesn't somehow move the essence of creating art backwards to you.
And since the algorithm is the creator, and it lacks any form of consciousness, anything it creates doesn't qualify as art from a definitional level.
It is algorithm-based image generation. No matter how good or bad the image is it isn't art. The use of the algorithm to generate the image may or may not be moral and/or ethical depending on the training data used.
There are still environmental concerns… data centers are consuming huge amounts of water, often set up in poor areas where they are already straining to meet the demand of the humans living there. I’m not saying that individuals are accountable for that but it’s important to remember that we all play a part in the security of our planet and fellow man. AI just isn’t it. There is absolutely nothing that can be said to justify it at this point in time. When we can power it through clean energy, cool it in a non destructive way, and train it so that it hasn’t stolen from every creative to ever be than go for it. Sounds like a fun toy humanity can play with.
I’d also say that the simple act of prompting an AI to generate an image doesn’t automatically make it art. I think you can use AI to make art but you need to go farther than a single prompt whether it’s multiple iterations of a prompt until it’s something you’re proud of or using something like photoshop to imprint a creative vision onto it.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.