Thoughts on AI art?

I don't care for it. It's just glorified tracing.

AI may be able to creative prettier things than I can, but it can't replicate what's exactly in my head. Therefore it's completely useless to me.

I'll just say, while I could be very well be proven wrong, I don't believe AI art will be REPLACING people any time soon on a significant scale. Regardless of weather you think it is even ethical or not, even if/when AI art becomes better than any human could possibly make, I just don't think humans are as invested into text prompted generations as we are things that our fellow living beings have made. And if such is the case, art based companies won't be able to survive if they go ALL IN on AI. They will basiccly always need humans for the simple fact that they're humans.

And, frankly, there are thing's I'd LOVE AI for, even as someone who really enjoys the process of doing things on his own. I've often imagined an animation program where you could essentially import an animatic, script, and general art style instructions and stuff, basiccly everything a human animation team would need, and have an AI spit out an animation for you based on all of that. Call that cheating or whatever, but to me, on a fundamental level, it's really not much different then using motion tweening. Either way, a human is setting up the scene, and a computer interpreting the in-betweens, with humans ultimately fine tuning and being in ultimate control of everything.

Alright, I said WAY more then I intended, so I'll just come right out at this point and say that while I understand the fear and the anger that people might have toward AI art, I have no real moral or ethical objection to it. Yes, even as an artist who LOVES doing things for himself, and would not so much as trace a hand. Far as I see it, it's just a new tool. Like photoshop, any digital art program, any program where you can digitally alter an image.

I'm not against the AI itself, just the people that use it selfishly.

Why?
It's database requires already existing artworks in order to operate. Said artworks in most cases was took without the consent of the original artists.
At the same time that many people just dump artworks to the IA to generate new results, constantly feeding it. At the same time, it became a biohazard of legal issues, as it takes stuff from the internet and what people manually feeds it, you don't know if the image generated may have copyright, trademark or authoral rights. The situation wouldn't be the same if someone offered to create the IA and then, asked a selected group of artists if they'd like to feed it, and as you generate your image with the prompts, you'll still receive imput of what elements of the original artists have been implemented by the software.

Not to mention that despite being classified as a tool, artists are not the ones using it most of the time. Maybe some artists may be using it properly, be it as inspiration or to come up with compositions of drawings.
But actually, the ones taking advantage of it are people that don't draw, don't want to bother to gain a skill and many want to gain money from it, be it by deceiving others about a service or product they offer.
Which is a funny situation considering that AI art is useed as an alternative to not pay artists "You can generate images for free!" but then why do they want to scam and deceive people, and why other AI users defend it?
Let's not forget how many companies or studios just shove their artists's works in a database, then fire them, expecting the AI to obtain the same results. Many do in fact consider it a reeplacement for artists because "They are hecking expensive, how dare they charge!"

At this point, AI art is not very different from contemporary art, people don't know the difference between appropriationist art and plagirism. So many won't even bother understanding why right now AI is more damaging to artist than actually a benefitial tool.

Personally, maybe the day that theey can reegulate the usage of AI, evade exploitation, or people profiting out of it through a legal hole, or making an IA that its limited to personal usage. Maybe I'll give it a try.

For example, an IA that only feeds on my local files from a specific folder, I deecide which files go there, and there are security measures to evade it from leaking to the web, at the same time, it doesn't generate a high-res illustration for me that I can simply rip-off an call an illustration, just a thumbnail like sample that uses my work, my style, my own inpputs that then I can utilize to polish my work.

Here are some general thoughts about technical development:
-it can´t be stopped
-people will lose their jobs
-jobs will completely disappear
-it will be worse than you can ever imagine

I have nothing against AI art as long as you don't claim it as yours.
Claiming you own a prompt command is like saying you own a google search.

Ai art is just a tool and should only be used as such.
Just like any other Ai tool you can use it as reference or for fun but when you try to make it seem as something you created then it's fraud.

It's like copying your friends homework without changing anything. Sooner or later a teacher will find out and you both will get in trouble and fail the class.

So yeah use it for references or for fun but never claim it as your own.

AI by itself isn't bad, as technology goes. BUT as long as it create their datasets without consent, compensation, credit and transparency, it will be only glorified art theft.

Also, as value goes, all that AI throws is garbage. Only fast food. It may look and taste decent, but it will only destroy your eating habits. Humans always will be needed, and their art skills will have higher intrinsic valor than any AI image. The problem is that the monetary value will not be the same, because capitalist society, but that's another problem altogether.

As long as corporations insist that we should push into something, society will go there -as car fueled with gasoline instead of electricity. Unless the population is really awkward about it and stops it full as there are only monetary losses isntead of an investment -as Meta, as NFT, as most of digital coins go- AI will have their days counted, at least as how the corporations want it to go. Its a trend pushed throw our throats, but as long as we defend ourselves, as SAG-AFTRA is doing, there is always hope for the artist.

It makes art better than I do, just like the millions other artists out there, some of which are twice as young as I am.
Honestly I am just really tired of this topic and I am not sure I care much anymore. If people consider themselves artists because they put in a few words in the program, it's on their conscious.

F*CK AI
I found my work in a dataset, which is really not OK. Nobody asked for my permission?!
I just hate that there are now a few AI companies that are just making money by abusing the work of so many artists.

Oh and I must say, AI with the purpose of just being entertaining, dumb. That the person doesn't seek to profit out of it or at least credits the main source or database that it utilized. That's ok.

The issue is when you're trying to profit out of it and trying to deceive people into thinking you drew that thing as if you were an old-fashioned artist.

Paintings didn't stop being made with the invention of the camera and physical art still exist even with programs like photo shop being able to replicate it. Technology does not replace art but streamlines it, like a tool. An artist that implements it in their art may be able to cut the time it would take to complete a project in half or maybe more.

Jobs disappear, that´s part of the progress of technical developement.
There will always be human made art, they just don´t make money with it.
The music business disappeared but people still guy guitars

I can argue this. I have seen several of your works. And it does not pale in comparison. You are a pretty great artist.
That being said I am comparing the sketches I have seen you draw to similar art styles done by either AI or other artists.

When comparing yourself to others or in this case the AI do remember to compare the artstyle you are using and the amount of details you are adding.
It's not the same making a drawing for a comic than to do a drawing with way more levels of shadows and lightning.

Calling it ‘ai art’ is a bit generous, its more of a plagiarism-printer.

It looks like hot garbage and I don't like it. The fact that people are trying to make a profession out of generating ai images for profit is laughable. But it doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon.

If this utter pillock likes it and all for it (missing the point why there is a problem with it). Then I'm against it.

@irresponsiblepics can't take the things we do out of love, eh

Many folks here already tackled the current ethical issues with many programs and the illegitimate means and uses of the database used to train A.I. , so i will focus on a pragmatic and practical analysis of this tool.

AI art is good at doing more of the same that's already there, but doesn't work well when you try to go outside the box.

They can't come up with stuff outside the database used to train them. Ironically, the closest it comes to lateral thinking are misinterpretations of prompts/objects, like "salmon swimming upstream in the river".

I prefer working with humans, they give more consistent results and give a personal unique touch to the art.

If anyone has earned the title of pillock, it's Shadiversity.