AI and filters, are they bad?

[BOMB]

Alright, so I think it's understood that most people do not like AI used to create art or writing. My question is how do people feel about using filters or using AI to upscale aspects of an image like shadows and lighting.

For example, this is an an image that was made by a digital artist, with no AI used.

I believe it's a great image. But let's say we want to push it further than the artist knew what to do. Or what if we need to make edits and the artist is no longer available. How do you think people would feel about using Ai to make edits like this

It's the same image but with more shadows essentially.

Another example is this image,

And again using AI to do something like

Do you think people would have an issue with using AI like this? The way I see it, it's like using a photo filter when used this way, but I'm hesitant to use it because of the backlash it could get even though the base images are real and hand drawn.

(In no way am I endorsing AI, and the images are just examples not currently featured anywhere.)

[Tursastheeternal]

Do you think people would have an issue with using AI like this?

Yes. Many people (me included) have a personal zero tolerance policy on AI. The technology was built by mass scale exploitation of creatives and just it's causing massive social problems in the world.

A potential backlash isn't the only thing you need to worry about, though. It could get your work banned since it's not allowed on tapas.

I'd also recommend against using it, just for your own sake. If you rely on AI to do your shading, it makes it more difficult to learn to do that yourself.

[KevinReijnders]

Still a fucking no go from me.

I cannot fathom why you would willingly run your own art through the fucking slopmachine.

[Oriflamme]

The “Ai” shading makes your art look like something entirely straight out of the slop machine. Aside from the moral issue, it makes your art look cheap. Whenever I see people using something made using image generators, the actual content is the last thing on my mind. I think to myself “these hacks could not even bother spending the time to create the image the proper way, so why should I waste my time looking at what they ‘created’.”

[Lensing]

It´s not "like a photo filter", it´s generative AI.

Art by Jay Geldhof

[BOMB]

To be clear. None of these images are currently being used anywhere, they were just being used as examples here.

And to give further context into why I posed the question to begin with, I use photoshop to make a lot of images or edit images. I've also used Illustrator and a few other Adobe programs. There have always been features in these programs that basically let you click a button and it automatically takes something out or puts something in. Comparing it to an Ai thing, there are quite a few similarities. Especially now, Photo shop lets you do a lot more than it did 6 or 7 years ago. I guess I was just curious where people draw the line between the two things.

I actually knew a guy back in high-school who would use photo filters, on his artwork and this question reminded me of him. He went on to win awards and even got scholarships for some of the work he made.

I suppose there are lines between software, filters, and Ai, but before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not endorsing anything. Just wanted to know where others drew the lines.

[BOMB]

It was just for the sake of examples. We're not actually using anything like this currently.

[BOMB]

Point taken. If I may, how do you feel about actual photo filters, or presets in a program like photoshop or illustrator.

In no way am I endorsing Ai, but I'm curious where people draw the lines, or if there are some people who don't use certain features in programs, or see anything that wasn't 100% done by hand as Ai.

[BOMB]

I say its "like" because there are similarities. I'm not trying to say they are exactly the same or even that one is better than the other. Just comparing the two in what they both do (editing a photo or image quickly).

That said, point taken.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I suppose there are lines between software, filters, and Ai, but before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not endorsing anything. Just wanted to know where others drew the lines.

I think this is actually an interesting question...there are a lot of standpoints from which to address it.

I assume you're coming from the "ownership of the work" standpoint, where using AI should be more excusable if the AI is just touching it up rather than creating it whole-cloth. I understand the argument, and there are a lot of similar arguments when it comes to the creation of art (like photo-bashing).

The issue here is that AI goes beyond things like photobashing due to the specific context of its existence. "Ownership of the work" isn't the only standpoint here; there's also "environmental impact", "societal impact/philosophy", "moral integrity a.k.a. do I want my money and support going to the creators of this AI no matter how useful it is, considering all those other factors".

...And in light of all that, it's going to be difficult to take this proposal at "just asking questions" face value. =/ I mean, if you really want an honest answer, I guess it's less bad. Still don't wanna do it myself or support anyone who does. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Think of it like this: so I don't know where you live, but I'm in the U.S., and around these parts it's possible for officials to 'rent out' prisoners, from prison, to do outside work. Essentially, these are modern-day slaves being paid pennies on the dollar, if anything, to pick up trash along the highways, or even to take orders at McDonald's.

And within that example, I feel like you're asking "well, isn't it okay if they're picking up trash?? That's a benefit for the environment; it's better than having them work fast food" and I'm like, yes, technically it's better...but I still don't want it done by slave labor?? Can we not...think of any other way to accomplish this task...??? o_O Why does the thought experiment end there...?

You see what I'm saying?

[KevinReijnders]

You still slopified your own work, even if just as an example.

[LunarScyphozoa]

[BOMB]

Yeah I completely get what you mean.

The reason I and the rest of my team don't currently use AI is because it takes from a bunch of other people's art which is basically stealing.

But I thought my question was worth asking because if instead of using it to generate an image, what if it was just being used to edit one, does that require it to necessarily take from other images or was it just taught to know when and where to use certain tools. In that case I think there are software that basically do the same thing but they just aren't called AI.

Like if I need to mask out a person standing in the background of a wedding photo, what's the difference between using photoshop vs an Ai thing. Same thing with adding shadows or highlights, I'm pretty sure photo shop has features to let you do that, the difference would be pointing and clicking vs text, but you get my point.

And a few years ago people used photo filters everywhere (a lot of which were cringe or annoying) but I don't think people had an issue with them unless people tried to lie and say they didn't use filters.

But my initial question was looking at things in a vacuum, not thinking about data farms or land use. If we look outside of the vacuum you're definitely right. But then that raises other questions, because (and I don't have any research or data but) do other tools like photoshop or art software also consume land and use information training? I feel like everything is getting more and more like Ai, if not in how it can be used, then in the way it's made. (Which I find concerning)

[kyupol]

The AI shall inherit the earth when humans go extinct. Thats the end game...

For starters, look at the declining birth rate even in India, Philippines, Latin America, etc. Countries that traditionally have high birth rates.

Africa has high birth rates while it industrializes for now... but give it maybe 30 years or so, it will be their turn to get population decline.

Its over for humanity.

[BOMB]

It was a 30 second experiment. And the thingy i used doesn't have the ability to save or use any information or images i used with it.

If you feel like I fed a machine I can't argue that I didn't try something out, but again, I'm not endorsing anything.

[BOMB]

I'm not sure how I feel about all of that... but if you're right, I hope my particular overlord happens to be an ice cream machine with a sprinkle dispenser.

[penxpanel]

Nope still a problem.
1. Even if it's just "improving" what's already their, the program still built on stolen works.
2. The environmental factor of how much water and space AI places use is also still an issue.
3. If the artist isn't available to fix their work, why are you touching it? Itsn a similar vein to 'fixing art' trend that's been going around.
4. Rendering is a huge part of art and an artist style. It isn't 'just rendering.' AI is doing a lot of the work, and how it renders was stolen uncredited from an artist.
5. Your not an artist if you don't do it yourself. To be an artist is to create. This isn't creating, it's hiring somebody to do it for you than going 'look what I did!'
If your not willing to spend the time, if you don't enjoy art. Than don't do art. Find something else your actually willing to invest yourself in

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but yeah a lot of artist spaces are, zero ai tolerance, for a reason.

[kyupol]

I dunno... by then I'll probably be some old man in some elderly care facility run by AI humanoid robots who will determine when its time to pull my life support...

Or in my home being visited by an AI robot PSW (personal support worker) 2 to 3x a week... until it will determine when its time to unalive me because in its logical mind, Im already a burden to society and it will be to stop my suffering "for my own good".

Either way, my d3ath will come. Thats for certain. 🪦

[KevinReijnders]

Oh you are like, insane-insane...

[BOMB]

Well to address number 1. Thats kind of a part of my point/question. I think there are a lot of software or programs out there that do this but just aren't called Ai.
2. I'm not disputing that. My initial question was just looking at a specific issue in isolation I suppose.
3. Well this one is actually interesting. I'm actually a part of a team. We have several people who do a variety of things, so we may have up to 2 to 3 artists on a single single project. Sometimes one artist might have to leave and can't be reached when edits are needed. So it's not an issue of trying to "correct" another artist work. There was a time when we made a book cover for one of our authors, but the author didn't see the cover until the main artist had already left. The author actually had to be the one to make the edits or else the main character of their book would have had the wrong color eyes and hair. Things like that happen.
4. I'd say what I wrote for number 1 applies to this one.

I could go through the rest of your points. But again, not endorsing anything, just having a conversation, and I actually agree with you on quite a bit, Im just noticing that there are growing similarities between Ai and things we don't call Ai