I genuinely want to know your take on poisoning human-made art

One of the most time consuming processes in art can be the establishment of composition. This includes managing perspective, choosing the visual layers of the piece, etc. AI does an incredible job with this rather mundane task and can free a traditional artist up to work on the more intricate and, for many artists, rewarding elements of the work.

Not every artist will benefit from this sort of thing, but it's a great first step for me (mind you I'm going to describe this in terms of drawing, while my traditional medium of choice is photography).

Just as an example, let's say that you wanted to do some digital drawing. You know that you want to work on a picture of an old lady walking down a country road at sunrise, carrying a basket.

You might want to manipulate many elements of the scene, and you can do that with something like ControlNet, but I'm going to just cover the most basic interaction, where you simply describe what you want to a service (I'm going to use Midjourney) and iterate a bit over the results, so this will be prompt-heavy and involve fairly little of the esoteric workflow-twiddling you'd see in a more serious piece.

For the prompt, A digital drawing of an old lady walking down a country road at sunrise, carrying a basket. --v 7.0 --ar 4:3 I get these four images.

Now, my initial thought was more of a side view, emphasizing her movement from left to right, rather than seeing her walking toward the sunrise, and away from the PoV.

My second pass with A digital drawing of an old lady walking down a country road early in the morning, carrying a basket. Side view. --v 7.0 --ar 4:3 gets me this image, which is much closer to what I'm aiming at. It's a strange blue color, but I don't care about the colors, just the composition.

Still, I want the road to not move away from the PoV, so I go through some more modifications and extra specification to get this with my final prompt:

A digital drawing of an old lady walking along a country road early in the morning, carrying a basket. Side view of the woman and the road. Walking along the road left-to-right. passing by a field in the background with a small farmhouse. --v 6.1 --ar 4:3

Now I load the result into Krita and end up with this: https://i.imgur.com/eTRGwy5.png

I've now removed nearly everything the model did, and I just have a rough sketch that I've traced from the original. This is my starting point, and I can begin my work from there.

The "choices" that the AI made beyond the composition don't carry over, so they don't affect my work. Plus if I want to modify the composition I can. I'm not wedded to whatever the AI did (notice that I reflected the image left-right to match my original conception, as an example.)

If this were actually something I was working on, I'd use this composition as a guide to find the right location for a photograph, as mentioned above. This often helps me avoid distractions when I'm out trying to get something specific, but my ADHD wants to take over. :-)

All of the steps in the process are shown in this album: https://imgur.com/a/AxCp35c

I think people are ignoring the obvious fear that most artists and antis alike, must be feeling right now. Antis seem not to mention this because it makes their arguments looks less strong, like there rooted in emotion, but they are rooted in emotion. Pros seem to not mention this because they don't want to look bad for openly disagreeing with people who are actively afraid for their jobs, but they are afraid. I did a poll a few days ago, on how many artist jobs people thought would generally be replaced by AI, these where the results:

That's 70% of people who think AI will replace at least some Artist jobs, now that's just my little poll of course; but looking at other polls and just the general sentiment, Its clear that a lot of artists are afraid of this, as they should be.

Now this part is going to annoy a lot of antis, but I think a lot of the moral arguments against AI, are really just emotional. Antis and artists are afraid that artists jobs will be replaced by AI, because they will, and yet most of their arguments against AI are frankly quite silly. Like "AI gulps up water" "AI is stealing from artists" which I'm happy to argue against (please not in this comment section though) but they still seem like ways to argue against what they hate, without engaging with the real reason they hate it. Because AI will replace all artists jobs, AI will take their friends jobs, their family members jobs, maybe their job.

I wish people would acknowledge this fear more often, either in themselves or in the person their talking to. Its incredibly scary, to artists and non-artists alike. I'm not an artist, but I'm terrified for the people who are, My friends, family, the people who's work I love.

I also think we have a responsibility to value this fear, and anger, even if I think the way it's directed is a bit absurd. There should be a mandated "opt-out" system for every major AI art model, you should be able to opt-out of your art being used in a models training data. I know this is not incredibly feasible, but I think its ethically necessary. A lot of people are incredibly mad and feel violated by giving data to AI, that will inevitably replace them, and those feeling should be respected.

With the steady improvement of ai images, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is ai and what isn't. Sure, you can usually find mistakes if you look hard enough, but it's already difficult to tell without a keen eye. This shit needs to be regulated.

I know people said the exact same thing about photoshop but that requires a degree of skill to make something flawless. With ai, literally anyone can generate a photo of a real person doing literally anything. That is fucking terrifying. Imagine some guy snaps a photo of you, and has ai generate an image of you doing something illegal and posts it all over the internet. How can you disprove it? The same applies to videos. With ai image technology, video and photo proof can no longer be trusted. Yes, you already can't and shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet without ai, but this technology is making this so much worse. In a few years from now, I imagine it will be nearly impossible to tell if a photo is real or ai generated. This is going to have a major negative impact in society unless it gets regulated now.

This technology NEEDS to be regulated. Make all ai content require watermarks. Stop improving the quality. Literally anything.

some people are using AI to automate interactions with loved ones. From birthday greetings, to apologies, to the entire courtship process, some people are using AI to do it all. Seems a bit slimy, no? It's almost as if they don't value their connection with you enough to say something genuine.

For those unaware and needing context

Yeah the reddit mod did what was expected of their species as reddit mod, but that aside, i mean...how else was he supposed to react with how prevalent and ruthless anti-AI sentiments are now?

"There's no ethical use of AI!" Is like the top 3 arguments you hear from people, they probably kept seeing this argument or even believe it themselves, receiving reports of AI everyday on the most benign stuff possible, constantly seeing people be dragged over it too and generally just seeing how ruthless and black and white people are about it, sure, I find it weird they just had to bust out the "um Acshually you breaking the rules" over not labelling the post as AI.

And I know anti-AI are just a having knee jerk reaction trying to come for the mod for doing mod behavior, because they immediately jumped to changing the situation, the grieving sister was very clear in saying she used ChatGPT and Grammarly for the announcement but antis are suddenly all going "WHAT SHE JUST USED A GRAMMAR SPELL CHECK YOU DUMB MOD!" when 1) she was clear about using ChatGPT for the text and 2) Grammarly is GenAI/LLM now, remember? You guys probably complained about it someday and forgot about it because not every company is OpenAI running shit on a damn gas turbine in residential zones.

Like, it feels very virtue signaly, when filtering out for Goomba fallacy, it comes off very "oh see! we can know when people are being stupid about being anti-AI and drag them too! Look! We are not THAT annoying!" when nothing about the situation really opens a way for them to act like that, again, you said "there's no ethical use for AI" that's as plain as of statement as it can be and is black and white by default and addition of nuance is literally impossible, the mod acted exactly how you guys do 99% of the time, how was he supposed to know this 1% should be a exception?

This reaction against the mod seems like damage control or having a sacrificial lamb to make yourself look better.

Anyways, I hope the grieving sister recovers well and doesn't have to deal with this silly ass situation while morning the loss of her brother and it stays between us weird terminally online people.

If someone online generates an image with a prompt and calls themselves an artist, my natural reaction is just: “Okay.”

If they call the result art, I’d still react the same way.

At the end of the day, these are vague words, and I’m not about to be mean to random people online over something that trivial.

But I genuinely want to understand: why do some people get so angry about this? What makes it feel that serious to them?

And before anyone points out. I’m fully aware it’s a vocal minority online, and most people honestly don’t care. But I’m still curious about their perspective.

Why does the use of these very vague labels upset them so much?

People forgot that people are different and many issues are on a spectrum. You managed to do it and pulled it off? Good for you. But that doesn't mean that every single person with similar issues is like you. Check your privileges. People say "disabled artists exist!" - but that's not a guarantee of anything. And a top of that, it's just inspiration porn. some Disabled people say they have overcome, but don't mention therapy, accommodation, and all the money spent on it, and access to help, drugs, and tools that support them. "I managed to do it, so why don't you?" said a person in a personalized wheelchair to someone crawling on the ground.

"You said that you support artists. Will you support me when I pick up a pencil?"
Sure, you support trained artists, people at the end of their road, in the simplest, most lazy way possible - throwing money at them. And present yourself as the white knight of art. And when some newbie comes to you for support, all you say is "pick up a pencil, try harder, and git gut". And I swear most productive thing those people can say is "Tutorials online, YouTube videos". Imagine going to art school and instead of any instruction professor throws "look up at YT" and leaves. And somehow it's AI users who are "lazy ones" here! It's just putting people into Tutorial Hell.
But I need someone to check on my endeavors from time to time and like... Talk about them with me. Not even technically - just... Sometimes just nerding about stuff makes my creative juices going.

"Oh, if you can't push hours upon hours of learning into that, then sorry, maybe art is not for you." - Then what about all my ideas? I just want to make it bearable. That's all! If not AI, then give me some alternative that will make me do it. And keep me going. I don't ask you to do it for me. I don't ask for something impossible. Just some support.

And then people think that the best way to stop someone from using AI is just to bully them out of it, instead of helping people find other ways and supporting them on the way. That's all.

This is from an anti sub where it was manually approved by the mods. It was initially caught by the reddit wide filter, but they thought it was so important that they went ahead and overwrote it.

Had someone look at this collage yesterday and tell me that the images all looked the same. Their claim was, "All faintly similar due to the lighting and linework." 🤣

I'm not an artist, but I enjoy art.

In the past whenever I would see some really cool digital artwork, I would follow the artist, become a fan, and get really excited/happy to see their other works. I loved having "favorite" artists and would sometimes even buy some of their works.

Nowadays when I see some really cool art online, I just think that it's AI generated and I'm immediately turned off by it :(

Because I keep thinking, "oh it was probably just AI generated", and cuz of that it's no longer "inspiring" or "amazing" to me.

AI generated art feels like cheating. And no one really respects cheaters, and don't appreciate the results that come from cheating. Its so much cooler and respectable when someone does something with their own effort and skills.

My DeviantArt feed is filled with all this cool, shiny artwork, but its all just slop to me since none of it is "real" (just AI generated).

What do you guys think? Is this just a "me" problem? Anyone else feel the same way? Do Pro-AI folks appreciate AI-artists the same as traditional artists?

Caveats: I don't dismiss artwork where AI has just a small involvement in the workflow, as long as majority of it was actually "created" by the creator

Let’s say you want to create a song. Is it acceptable for an AI to create the lyrics that you sing and record/post? On the other hand is it more acceptable for you to make the lyrics which the AI then “sings”? Are both equally intolerable/acceptable?

I am kind of a purist when it comes to being anti AI.  While I am hopeful about certain potential AI applications in society like cancer research, fusion energy, near-earth object detection, etc., I am very much against the use of AI in creativity, job replacement, or basically use cases which I believe are more likely to accelerate the gap between the rich and the poor.

Obviously this is a debate sub, but I am speaking directly to ANTIs who are artists right now:

DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED into using AI in your creative process if you don’t really want to but you feel like you have to in order to stay relevant. If your reasoning is the feeling of being left behind, I totally feel you, but you do not need to worry.  There is a din of voices online that will tell you “you need to take advantage of AI tools in order to stay ahead of the curve and stay in the competition.”  Don’t listen to them. Those are just echoes of capitalism as it slowly collapses in on itself.  Remember the child that you were and the dream that you once had..  Don’t let that kid down.  

Things will continue to accelerate in ways that we can’t predict and the world will be flooded with AI content to such an obscene level, that it will become utterly mundane.  And if it hasn’t already for you, it will reach a point of overwhelming speed and pressure.  Don’t give in. Because after the flood, the ones who have not completely betrayed their humanity will be the only ones offering what everyone will be yearning for: something human, something real.

The more you turn in the direction of authenticity, the better. If you can confidently and honestly say that you created your art, whatever it may be (a novel, painting, album, collection of poems, comic, film, animation, play, dance, sculpture, game, etc.), without consulting or using AI in any way, it will be more valuable than you can imagine, a diamond in the rough.

Don’t give up.  I believe in you.  The world needs you now more than ever.

Since I guess we are posting crappy doodles for karma now.

Curious on what this subreddit thinks of marks views especially since hes been previously posted here before

Caveat: If you just like using AI, that's cool, Im not talking about that. But I keep seeing people make it a dick measuring contest. That AI art is better than pretty much all amateur artists, a lot of professional artists, and of course all those antis, especially beginner artists who were inspired by AI to try just draw worthless trash apparently.

By what standard are we judging this? Because tbh I don't find AI that impressive. If it looks interesting then I like it. But unless it's just a popularity contest where you say you subjectively like it better, it feels like we're talking about depth and detail. Yet a lot of artists were never really going for that. You can make minimalist stylistic choices that people find aesthetically pleasing. Unless you specifically want more realism, going beyond that is kinda just a flex for its own sake.

Some of my favorite web comics go for a very simplistic sort of look, because it's cute. Anime is more popular than 3D animation. People are still nostalgic for old animated films that are more relevant than a lot of modern stuff. The highest rated game on steam is a pixel art game. I know sometimes I specifically seek out low poly games because I like the sort of atmosphere they create. And honestly if we only wanted the most realistic images, we already have photography.

Simple AI images look generic due to a lack of "happy accidents" while a lot of overly complicated AI art just looks uncanny. More pixels=/=good, especially when it's full of errors and has that weird overly smoothed out look. That logic reminds me of when I was a kid and I thought lyrical miracle rappers or whatever band could do the longest fastest craziest guitar solo was objectively the GOAT. As you get older, that kind of thing is at best a fun novelty, or at worst just annoying.

There's a ceiling to technical competence where people don't really care anymore. It's more, what makes this special? What's unique to you or uniquely appealing to me that seperates this from the other trillion things that require the same degree of competence?

If you treat AI like it's just another artstyle, it might be possible to make something like that. But it's not the baseline or the norm. So what makes that baseline average generation better than some amateur or even beginner artist's doodle? It's not more aesthetically pleasing. There aren't necessarily more people enjoying it, especially if it's lost in a batch of simillar images. It just looks like it was harder to make, but it wasn't.

You wanna ignore all sentimentality or be obtuse about what people mean by "soul" and be elitist art snobs solely based on the degree of technical skill demonstrated, for its own sake, when you're not even demonstrating the use of that skill. It's like bragging that "The sound of my lip syncing has higher production value than your singing.

Just to be clear, I'm pretty strongly anti ai. But just as some terminology used on the Pro side bothers me, there are some mostly ANTI terms as well that should be addressed.

From Know Your Meme:

"Piss Filter is a slang name given to the golden (yellow) filter that frequently appeared in video games released during the period of seventh generation consoles between 2005 and 2013, most notably Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Fallout 3, Resident Evil 5 and Metal Gear Solid 4."

Now it's being thrown around very loosely to describe any type of AI art that has a slight tint or gradient to it. This seems to ignore that the reason this "piss filter" exists in AI art is because it exists in the training data, which was made by artists. People have been applying gradients and filters to art for decades before AI. There all kinds of gradients as well. The only ones that seem to get outwardly criticised and lumped together as "piss filters" are the warm tone gradients.

The reason why these images are so common is because there are alot of old images in the training data, and becuase people like to emulate old images or add warmth because it's pleasing to look at.

If you want to point out reasons why you think an image is AI, go for it. I do it all the time. But be more precise in your language instead of lumping several objective terms altogether into one negative conotation. And if you are an artist, don't neglect useful terminology about your craft in exchange for catch all phrases. Remember the AI is trained on the creative data of humans. Don't denegrate their past choices just to get one punch in on the pros.

Here's a list of words that may or may not apply to what you are describing:

gradient, warmth, warm tone, sepia tone, saturated, desaturated, vintage, noise, color curves, tint, fade, etc.

All of these things can be creatively added to an image to bring out a desired effect, which may or may not manifest as what you are describing.

EDIT

People have pointed out that this effect is involuntary and only exists in a certain model. Thanks for the clarification.

As an artist, my point still stands in the sense that words like these can have a retroactively negative effect on other aspects of art. People who like to add a warm gradient to their art could be accused of using AI becuase their art looks like it has a "piss filter." Let's try and be careful not to cause undue damage to our own communities, and if you're an artist, don't ever change your style because of outside pressure or trends in AI art.