Article about AI art I read. I want to hear your thoughts

People concern with AI Is more people using it, claiming their work is original, and trying to make money off of the AI creation.

If are just playing around with Artbreeder and making images just for yourself, that is OK. It's sort of like those dollmaker games like Gacha Life. People will create their OC with them and might later use that as a ref when drawing their character.

The reason a lot of us artists are angry about AI art, which Loish accuately describes, is that our work is being used for these databases without our permission. Like for example, a while back, when messing around in Dall-e, I asked it to do "Dave Strider fighting Darth Vader" and this was the result:

Vader-vs-strider.png632x681 519 KB

The thing to note here is that the program should only know what these characters even look like if somebody has been feeding the database with copyright images of copyright characters. Now this is a program people need to pay to use so somebody is illegally profiting off the work of others here. Hussie has made it pretty clear that they're okay with people making Homestuck fan content, and okay with private Homestuck commissions for individuals, but don't give permission for people to make money off bootleg Homestuck merch, so I can't imagine they would have willingly entered images of Dave into this database, and I doubt a bunch of fan artists did either, and I certainly don't think the Disney corporation gave permission for all those images of Vader to be used. Meaning that people are putting images in that they 100% do not have any permission at all to do so with.

In a hypothetical perfect world where these programs use only art that was out of copyright, royalty free, paid for fairly or donated willingly... it might not be so bad. I can see a lot of uses for it, like if there was a tool that made 3D model backgrounds look more artistic with nicer lines and a more artistic feel by applying AI, I think that'd be a great tool for a lot of people.
The problem is, that as the above image demonstrates, you cannot guarantee images added to the database were added with appropriate permission. I've seen my work on 9gag and places before, posted without permission and making ad revenue I never see, and had no response to requests to have it taken down... so I have really low expectations that the people adding to these databases are subject to appropriate oversight to prevent them doing the same thing people do on 9gag and adding copyright material. There's simply no ethical way to use stuff similar to Dall-E for commercial use right now.

I pretty much agree with everyone else that AI should only use art for training with permission and compensation of artists, aside from public domain works that are free for everyone to make use of. I do feel like there are interesting possible applications for this. One possibility I've been thinking of is an artist training an AI on their own work. Now it might seem lazy or a shortcut, but at least its not stealing, and for some artists they really do need to produce a lot of content on strict deadlines to survive. It would still require creation of a body of art to use for training, and carefully picking the generated images. But I feel like something like this has the potential to help independent artists by increasing their output. Again this would be in a world where someone else isn't just stealing their work to train their own AI.

At the risk of sounding harsh and militant... I think AI art should be banned because nothing good will come from it not even in the way with the best of intentions. I think it's going to make things worse for all artists, we're going to be out of jobs and it's going to make the art world lazier.

This isn't like using a digital tool like a paint program or digital inking where you're still doing all of the work or even referencing where you're still doing all of the drawing yourself. This AI takes bits and pieces of existing art and merges them together to print a picture. If anything, it's just taking an existing picture and tweaking it which is essentially plagiarism and worse than that, it does it without permission. On top of that, the AI doesn't understand context or limits. It will print a portrait of someone naked and sometimes in an even provocative way without consent.

I get people want to use it to create a frame or body to train and that seems like a good idea, but it isn't. Knowing all of the techniques including how to do the bones yourself is a part of learning how to do art yourself. I never went to art school and I still needed to learn that at least. If you leave the most important step to an AI, you never learn to do your own style.

So yeah, sorry if I come across as tough, but I am firmly against AIs generating images and "art". To make real art, you need a heart and only a person has that.

Ethics wise I think the cat is already out of the bag. Putting kitty back in the sack won't be so easy.

I don't think that analogy works because it isn't a secret. It's technology. The real question is do we use it or not? My vote is NOT.

Haha true. A better one is the obvious Pandoras Box insert avatar joke here
I agree with what you say (I even think lineart correction tools in programs are a sin. Don't get me started on generated backgrounds).
Want to be good at something? Do the work. Don't rely on tech to do it.
AI will breed a generation of lazy, soulless but pretty art. Much like Avatar lol

Yeah actually. There are some jobs that should remain in human hands only.

If the program was
A. a hundred percent free and without ads
B. automatically added a watermark to whatever it made

then maybe it could be used solely for what this technology is meant for: shits and giggles.

I don't actually think that the next generation will be soulless and never know what creativity is because of AI art existing? Don't know, maybe I have a more positive outlook.
Like yes, I don't use line art correction tools, but I still only draw in digital, I can't do anything in traditional media except pencil sketches and not overly clean inking. I can't paint and the last time I tried was in 2002 or something. Does this make my art soulless?
I am not a big fan of 3D animation, but I have acquaintances and friends who love doing it. Just like I love my sketchy doodles, they enjoy making 3D, they are fascinated by it and they learn their ways.
So honestly, when it comes to art being an outlet of human creativity, I am not afraid for this aspect. There are much more possible problems with AI we could run into, but I don't believe in humanity dropping the act of creation (except, maybe, in desperation if AI would be able to take their jobs, but not everyone is creating only for work) in general.

I think AI has a place in the art world but shoud be used as a tool like Photoshop. It's up to the users about what they are going to do with it. The program I use searches from open sources and their user submissions. A lot of the AI artwork are composite images, so it mixes a lot of images/techniques/filters to get the final result. I don't think it'll completely take over creative art because of the "soul". If I want a nice picture to hang on my wall, I'm either going to make it myself or buy from a reputable source.

I do think that if art programs need to confirm their sources, regular artists will need to do the same. I've seen people get scammed because they paid an "artist" to do a job for them, who then turned around and stole another people's work. There are also a lot of people selling fan merch on their personal online stores - did they get a license to be able to sell that piece?

While I totally support artists getting paid fairly for their work and having a better option to report images that were indeed stolen - cracking down on AI art would also mean cracking down on a lot of other shady online art practices.

Honestly the main thing that’s has been messing with me the most is the way the people who use AI art have been acting. I’ve just been seeing the nastiest comments from what people call “AI / Tech Bros” saying stuff like “Are you mad that you’re not special anymore? Are you upset that now I can draw just as good as you? How does it feel that your whole profession can be replaced with a few lines of code? Guess you won’t be getting all those Twitter likes / clout anymore! This is what you get for not studying math like your parents told you to! Stop trying to stop the progression of technology! Arts not a real job anyway! This is what you get for thinking it is!”

Of course you could argue at least some of these guys are trolling but I think it’s clear that not all of them are. Some of them really believe this stuff and I just don’t get it.

Is this really what people think of artists? That we’re all some kind of high class elites who have been hoarding our talents from the laypeople to get money and clout? That AI art is some of way to take back art creation from “the Man” and give it to “the people?”

The only kind of person I could imagine thinking this are either
1) Someone who has attempted to draw and struggled to get their art the way they want and think that artist have been cheating by being “naturally talented”
2) people who have tried to exploit/get free art from artists before and now see artists possibly losing jobs / being stole from as some kind of “revenge”, or
3) Or three people who genuinely see being an artist as some kind of gateway to easy money and internet fame. These would be same kind of people who think are is “a natural gift” and that artists who have gotten ahead didn’t actually earn anything (again “cheating”)

Like, who could take this much GLEE in a whole industry of artist being terrified they’ll be replaced or stolen from?

I 100% agree with everyone else that in a perfect world AI art programs wouldn’t be a big deal. I think even someone who loves being creative can agree that the process can sometimes grueling, unrewarding, not fun and just kind of painful (both mentally and physically). We already ‘automate’ things in the way we make reusable assets, or use 3d models. But unfortunately we don’t live in that perfect world where tech like this could make the professional artist’s life easier, we live in this world where there are definitely higher ups who would use this to replace people.

I’m not smart enough to be able to predict what a future with AI will look like. Maybe we’ll all be replaced. Maybe this will become another tool and we’ll be able to use it like anything else. Maybe “the craze” will be over in a week and the nastier people will move on to the next shiny tech thing. I don’t know, but will say this.

I have nothing against the advancement of technology in the art world, but the fact that it is currently coming with this much SADISM is just disturbing.

Wow, okay, I didn't know there was so much spite coming from those places. And here I thought artists were the ones who were doing most of the yelling. Geez, at least I've never seen an artist who clearly just wants to 'make the techbros mad'

Not towards artists in particular, but I do feel like IP in general* is kind of elitist. A common argument I hear against IP abolitionists is 'if I invent something that saves millions of lives, I should never have to worry about money again. If I don't get to own my invention and continuously profit off of it, I might as well do a boring normie job if it pays the same amount'.

The idea that creatives and intellectuals (heck, this includes AI inventors) deserve to 'own' their work instead of being compensated for their time like everyone else feels very 'we are geniuses, we are better than those normies who can only do normie stuff, our time is worth more than theirs as evidenced by the continuous good impacts our work has on the world, therefore we should be compensated for said continuous good impacts. Exchanging our time for money at a fixed rate is beneath us.' (Don't forget any of those 'normies' could one day create or invent something spectacular as well, and are probably not already doing so because all their time is currently spent on doing their 'boring normie work' in order to keep afloat)

(Again, this is not aimed at artists in particular; e.g. commission artists do get paid for their labour instead of extracting rent from their ideas, which is the opposite of elitist :] And I'm also not saying that anyone reading this who supports IP consciously thinks this way :'D)

In that sense, I do in fact see violations of IP as 'taking back intellectual creation from “the Man” and give it to “the people”.', and that's why I had an initial knee-jerk sympathy towards AI art partially because of the art theft complaints. But I have to admit the pro-AI people are being incredibly hypocritical; it doesn't seem like they want to free all information for "the people"; it seems like they just want to become "the Man" themselves.

I say this as someone who does both art and math, and is not in any of the 3 categories you listed

They don't realise they will be replaced also soon enough.

I want an machine that's solely fed my art, so it can draw for me, just like me, in my style, and the credit still goes to me (and the programmer) because it's using my own art. I just need to touch it up and call it a day.

That aside, from what I see people are becoming keener to detect AI generated piece. People (as in non-AI bros) are also not dumb and they can also show different appreciation for AI generated piece and real art, based on the actual skill and effort. I am curious of what art style and trend will arise, as the trendy art styles and themes are being replicated by AI. Will it lead to people associating certain styles with AI?

It must feel bad that the art style you take time and effort to develop, and finally break the internet with many people want to copy you, now is associated with AI. I am thinking probably people with more niche art style won't feel as affected (despite they can be AI fodder too anytime). I have even heard the sentiment that it would lead to the dying out out the boring, popular, art styles; and let unique, more unknown art styles to shine through.

i have really complicated views on AI
that can mostly be summed up in "I think only industry artists should be allowed to use it"

I have a friend who works in the game industry as an artist and they HAVE to use AI (because crunch) but they don't use AI in the same way the people on Twitter Tech bros do, and she mentioned they use it incorrectly and it bothers her..
it's like they generate 100 images and go. "the arms on that one are neat, and that one has cool hair." And the rest they can figure out on their own.
(I'm really hoping I explained that right)