Thoughts on AI art?

[Katzalcoatl]

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.

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.

[LunarScyphozoa]

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

[Teira]

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.

[irresponsiblepics]

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]

You can physically create beautiful images in the real world. AI cannot. So there is that

[Kelheor]

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

[DiegoPalacios]

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.

[thepenmonster]

utter pillock

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

[Zixixibi]

[PapaDom]

I think AI is only good for shitposting or when you feel like experimenting around to see what kind of bizarre stuff it can come up with.

For everything else eehhhhh nah.

Making stuff by yourself is way more fun.

[Headypigeon4180]

Gonna be 100% honest

I was a writer that couldn't find an artist to draw my stuff. So I self taught myself to be an artist. At this point i'm just going to keep going as I'm going, i'll do my best to improve and keep drawing it myself.

[DiegoPalacios]

Making stuff by yourself is way more fun.

Or with an amazing squad of people too

[AmysGames]

I've given my thoughts on A.I. before, but to say it again: I don't think it's inherently bad. I think, with proper restrictions, it could be useful. I've used it before for inspiration.

But the more recent iterations of it I've found significantly less appealing. Results are too stale and less accurate to my prompts. I miss the more abstract results from earlier models because it left more open for interpretation, rather than just noticeably getting things wrong.

In any case, while it definitely needs to be properly regulated in the workplace, I'm personally not worried about being replaced by A.I., no matter how advanced it might get in the future. Because I create for the joy of creation, and no A.I. can replicate that.

[sodathecoda]

It helps to explore ideas, but I'm concerned that people who can't draw or do anything creative can profit from their "works" along with artists who actually draw something. At the same time companies start to prefer AI over real people. There was a huge issue with copyright and license from the very start. I hope that this will be regulated in some way.

[Chocolate]

I think in order for it to the fair, companies should pay royalty to the original artist in order to keep their art in their AI system. Otherwise it’s a huge pyramid scheme.

[NickRowler]

I feel like this video sort of touches on another frightening aspect of AI. AI filters could warp our standard of beauty to something unobtainable.

[Kalebell]

I think AI art is a little scary but it's also interesting how it mimics the human imagination and creativity. I do think that some AI art has something missing when I look at it, it just looks off to me and uninspired but it could advance in the future to where you can't tell if a human or robot made complicated pictures which scares me lol. I don't have a reason to use AI art, maybe for fun, I would rather make my own stuff and just be proud of it.

[KevinReijnders]

It doesn't mimick human imagination/creativity though. All it does is make a collage of data it's been fed, merging data points that have the same flag attatched to it.

[Lensing]

I quote Brenda Blitz, she is a musician and I just read an interesting interview with her and I really
liked what she said.
I try to translate it from german to english:

creative ideas are the result of soul exploration, nightmares, hope and desire. Anger, hate and
love, fear and pain. The overstepping of taboos, the joy deconstruction, obscenity and
political consciousness. Where is the computer which has nightmares, soul and hope or
a gut with bacteria which shapes it´s abstract logic?

[DanielRKM]

I recently got back from a conference where AI in art was heavily covered and debated. And I have mixed feelings about it all.

2 things I find encouraging about our situation- the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes have brought actors and writers together to reclaim the humanity in their art. AI will still be in film and television, but it won't erase people like it would have- not when people make themselves heard and are willing to fight for their living (so let's amplify their voices out of gratitude for their suffering and help mitigate others).

As artists, we have to drive the conversation too. AI is a tool, but it can't read a creative person's mind and spit out an image that lives up to it. Maybe one day, but as of now, it's just a fancy tool with a lot of hard edges. Know your worth. Advocate for yourself and your art. Fight the illegal databases (and so help me, if I see anyone say their art is less than what AI can do I will... Try to buy your comics on my VERY fixed income! You're better than robots, people! You contain multitudes!).

My day job is in packaging design for the beverage industry and I have found no evidence that AI-generative art can speed up my process yet (my God, and I really wanted it to because I had to make an illustration for one of those weird, cut up mango slices (you know, the cubist kind) for a fruit beer label and it would have saved me some time- but the robots failed me hard, y'all. All that art ended up being mine in the end with NO help from our robot overlords. But one day, AI might speed up my ideation phase for work and it might even be abstract enough where it makes a visually connection I didn't think of that my human brain and skill can then run with and make, well, human. One day maybe.

Regardless, the business trend we see coming is that AI won't replace people in the short term, but artist who knows AI will be hired over those who don't. So in the meantime, know your value as an artist and drive the conversation in the field. Let the non-creatives understand that AI is a tool and not the ONLY art solution they need.

I sat in on a session led by IBM's AI unit and they covered scenarios for artists and implored us to drive the conversation with our employers so they understand AI is just a tool and it needs to be ethically implemented so people aren't left in the dust (insert gif of human skulls being crushed by a tank from The Terminator).

(Transparency note, Daniel RKM has 3 comics staring sympathetic AI-based characters and probably can't be trusted in this debate. Insert skull-crushing Terminator tank imagery once again).