Oh honey you done struck a hornets hive.
Ai ain't art. Sorry, not in a shot within this gods green earth. What's made me pissed is references, Pinterest, Google, actual reference sites, its all AI.
Its trying to enter the art world like a virus and it's winning.
Whenever I scroll through Pinterest or just about any website with art, I always see these slop AI "art" and it's getting really irritating now. I feel bad for the artists who actually put effort on making their art just to get overshadowed by AI, and it gets even worse when people are actually profiting from it!
AI generated imagery (not calling it "art") is garbage slop that no serious artist should even consider using.
Not only is it soulless, it literally steals other people's artwork that they've put the time and effort into.
AI is here to stay and will only get better. There will be whole comics made from it. They will soon be able to copy styles. I dislike it, but it's fighting against the waterfall and companies will use it. Not too long ago, lots of artist (including me) hated the traced 3D model look, but it seems to be the norm now.
Absolutely not, it's completely ruined my experience, especially looking for references on art sites where everything is just flooded with AI junk.
At its worst, it's garishly ugly.
At its best, it's...STILL garishly ugly.
It rips off human artists, it's an excuse to not hire human artists, and its environmental footprint could prevent the birth of future human artists.
@Rigalance It seems you've kicked an anthill only to find that it was a swarm of bullet ants... 🤣🤣🤣
Like it or not AI art isn't going away now that it's out there. The best thing we can do is push for regulations on the datasets and making it so any AI generated product cannot be copyrighted. Companies might love cheaping out on hiring labor and replacing artists with robots, but they also love having an iron grip on their IP. If we make it so anything the companies make through AI is legal to be re-uploaded for free on the Internet, cutting into their profits, it might be a mild deterrent.
All these AI "artists" popping up claiming they "made" the art the AI spits out and so have full ownership is silly anyway. What they're doing is pushing some buttons so a software can interpret that using stolen datasets, then pasting it on the internet with maybe some rudimentary Photoshop. If that's enough to claim full ownership of a picture and legitimizes any money making venture, I might as well take that same picture and invert the colors and say it is now mine and I can make money from it too. Basically, this whole operation of AI feels like a scammer's business
I actually got heartbroken regarding AI art for a dnd campaign. I was so excited about a new campaign, I offered to draw everyone's characters for tokens and such. I started gathering everyones references and the DM flat out said 'don't worry i got them all done with AI so you don't waste your time.'
That was my first red flag for that campaign. I'm no longer a part of it.
Its generally pretty garbage. Like its just ugly, it uses a lot of power, which hurts the environment, and its filled the internet with trash. I've been on sites where its just all AI art, and its always ugly as heck
On a more serious note, there is this thing that bothers me and that proponent of A.I. seem to ignore. Whenever someone points out that A.I. art is kinda shit, they always argue that right now, it is imperfect, but it is only going to get better from here on out, and I don’t believe it.
Yes, progress in the last years is staggering, but it is a logical fallacy that progress is constant and linear. Just take smartphones, Yes they technically get better every year but there has not been real innovation in years. My first smartphone was my dad's old galaxy s1 from 2010, and in terms of basic functions, it is the same as my current one. The point is A.I. might not get better, it might just stagnate or even get worse.
A.I. advocates don’t seem to understand the basics of what they proselytize. What is commonly called A.I. is actually called large language models. It is not what we imagine when we say A.I. (Skynet, Glados, HAL 9000), but a more advanced complicated version of when you type something on your smartphone, and word suggestion appears at the top of the keyboard. They take in large amounts of data, analyse it for trends, and spit out something it thinks the end user wants based on the previous input. That kind of tool can be useful in limited circumstances but blindly applying it for everything might not work due to the inherent limit of the tool.
Simply predicting the next word function works well, (usually) because words and letters are something easy for a computer to understand, and the structure of language makes it easy to notice a pattern. Things get more complicated when you ask the same tool and ask it to do something more complicated.
Image generation is a lot harder because there are a lot more data points, and the human brain is a lot better at identifying when something is “off”. Let's take the example of hands, for a long time L.L.M. had difficulty reproducing hand because they produce things that are close to the average without understanding what that average is. Objectively, human hands have on average less than 5 fingers, so the computer will spit out an image with something like 4.9 fingers on one hand because it lacks basic understanding on why the average is less than five. Take the same problem, multiply it by hand in every pose at every angle, and it becomes understandable why for a long time image image generators had trouble creating hands.
The way it was eventually fixed was with the amount of training data. There are a lot of images on the internet that feature at least one human hand, so now L.L.M. are more competent at producing images of hands. The problem is that the tool has not fixed the underlying problem that it does not understand what it produces so it can only properly generate things that have sufficient training data.
There are a lot of things that are a lot more complicated than hand with a lot less training data available so I doubt generative models will ever be at the point where everything is right.
There is a common rule of thumb that the last 20% take exponentially more work as the first 80%. A.I. companies have effectively used the entire internet, the collected sum of human knowledge and creation, to reach the 80% mark, but that means they are running out of new training data to finish the last 20%. All of that does not include the risk that the training data is corrupted by shitty A.I. art and the data start inbreeding with itself like the Hapsburg, or deliberately sabotaged by disgruntled artist/employee or rival government/company.
That is why I’m skeptical that “A.I.” will truly reach the potential its advocates insist it has.
Agreed. There is a permanent limitation in that prompters still don't have any taste or skill no matter what the quality of the output is. They can't distinguish good work from bad, and they don't have the skills to spot and fix any specific problems they might have. No amount of machine learning can fix that.
The emergence of AI has seriously worsened the problem of fake news and fake photos.
In the past, creating fake photos required a certain level of Photoshop skills, but now anyone can easily produce fake photos.
Although many AI-generated images are obviously fake at first glance, for many people online, these fake photos are already convincing enough that they cannot distinguish them from real ones.
