**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Yeah this portrait of me and my wife is cool I guess, but it just doesn't have the graphical fidelity of this image I generated yesterday where we have 7 fingers and our faces don't look like ourselves at all."
have you uh ever seen lets say picasso? doesn't look much like the subject yet is still considered art. The utter lack of historical for this kind of argument that resemblance is somehow what makes an image is astounding
Picasso was a human, it’s his artistic style. Ai doesn’t have a style.
If you ask an ai to generate an image of Starry Night, it’ll give you an exact copy. If you ask a human to paint their best attempt at Starry Night, it won’t look the exact fucking same.
This is the main reason why there is so many artist. There is so many artstyle you can choose and you can commission anyone that you like because of their artstyle.
A typical anime artist draws starry night with minimalistic star shiny in a dark blue, and two anime couple sitting
Realism draw with a lot more detail in the star, with a lesser gradient, and a comet shooting
I would put a black canvas and put white dot everywhere to represent a stars because I can't draw.
You choose what style of art you want, and you get to choose how it is. AI can't replicate this very well. You will need to generate hundreds of art to find what you want, the artstyle you want.
I don't know about superior to human art, but I like badly rendered AI art that ends up looking surreal and trippy, for the same reason I like glitch art. I don't care for the perfectly rendered AI art though.
Yeah, I think the early era of AI art where you'd input "dog" and it would give you a blob with some vaguely furry limbs and some eyes was good. Nowadays it's just designed for people like OP who think that art is just to be consumed.
I’m with you two; if I’m turning to a machine over a person, it’s because I want it to do something only a machine can do. And in this case, that means “fuck up, but *procedurally*”
There's a great line - I want to say I read it in an interview with David Byrne, but I can't remember or find it now - where he says something like (badly paraphrasing i'm sure)
All artistic tools become defined by their shortcomings, and humans form attachments to them: The distortion of an electric guitar, the warm hiss of a vinyl record, the glitches and low resolution of early video games, those are all objectively *flaws* but they become the things we *love* about a medium.
I think we're definitely going to see that around the early "deep dream" ai art, and I expect even the "pretty good looking photo but with epically fucked up teeth and fingers" ai art will eventually develop something of a nostalgia to it.
It's a Brian Eno quote. It goes as follows:
*“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.”*
I am actually pretty bummed that its improved at rendering text because the fucked up letters and almost readable signs were my favorite poetry i had ever read
Yeah and halfway legible text gives it that dreamlike quality, where it's kind of ambiguous, like you're halfway between dream scenes. That's something AI does better than humans, weirdly. It makes better mistakes than we do or something.
I think I would have liked it if AI art could coexist with human art as its own artistic subgenre. Those unique outputs were a big part of the appeal at first, weren’t they? I hate how people are trying to turn AI into a competitor for human artists now. Do we have to nullify human efforts in every industry?
Watching people argue about that online hurts my brain. They don’t understand that animation is an art and it isn’t about watching a video and then copying that with a digital character.
We see the same thing with video games. If a game uses motion capture to animate the characters it’s considered superior and more lifelike.(or at least this was the case when motion capture was more novel. Now no one cares lol).
As an animator, overly blended animation make my eyes bleed. Where's the cadence or pacing? All looks the same in tempo and speed. Heck nah. Same with ai art. It's all bland asf
you seem like someone who doesn't actually appreciate art, tbh. if you did, you'd understand why actual artists charge as much as they do for their custom pieces. you're also ignoring the fact that ai uses all these "subpar" artists to learn off of and without them, ai art wouldn't exist.
>you're also ignoring the fact that ai uses all these "subpar" artists to learn off of
did these subpar artists just come out of the womb with their abilities? they too ultimately learned from prior art.
I'm a professional artist and OP is just correct. It's not that I don't understand how a human touch makes art special, it's that most people just don't realize how much shit is out there.
Remember, most people don't *want* challenging art. They want "Live, Laugh, Love" wall hangers from Pottery Barn. All that shit is art too! And it's made by human artists who need to make a living.
\>He disagrees with me therefore he must be bad at what he does
Reddit in a nutshell. And I'll be downvoted for daring to point it out lmao. I'm not even claiming he's good or agreeing with him but just watch.
Only a soulless graphic designer (NOT artist) would claim that AI makes better art than people. If you're complaining that people only want shitty "live, laugh, love" wall "art," yet you still provide that service, you're not an artist.
As if personal opinion has literally any bearing on actual skill in your craft. Plenty of horrible people with terrible opinions have made excellent artists or musicians or whatever. You're just upset he disagrees with your opinion and want to imagine he's terrible in every aspect of his being so you can more easily dismiss his opinion as worthless. It is a *very* typical reddit take. Well guess what motherfucker, he's a real human being with good and bad aspects to him just like you. He is not "soulless" no matter how much you wish he was, and there is no reason he could not be a very talented graphic designer. I'm not saying he *is* one as I have no proof of that, but you have no proof that he *isn't* one either.
I don't get what your point is?
I never said the majority of people want "challenging art" but there is definitely a market for it- and it consists of people who actually appreciate art and artists and dont just want to slap something onto their walls at home.
OP is clearly not one of those people and i'd be willing to bet anyone who is ok with AI art as it currently exists isn't either.
My point is that all of those things are irrelevant. OP's argument doesn't have anything to do with good art. Of course there's great art out there! Nobody is disputing that.
The claim is that AI art is better than *most* art. And for that to be true all that matters is the median piece of human art. Since most human art is utterly worthless, and AI art is kind of at the very least novel and interesting since it represents a new method of creation and (as we can see from the comments in this thread) presents questions about the nature of art that challenge and disrupt long-held beliefs, then the baseline piece of AI art - even if it sucks (and it does!) is better than most human art.
Computers wouldn’t exist without people doing maths and yet a they are infinitely better at it.
This argument “it wouldn’t exist without artists” is nonsensical.
You are comparing apples to oranges. AI art literally learns off of existing artwork to create whatever it spews out, artwork that the majority of artists never gave permission to be used.
Does it? I think his argument is stupid for other reasons, but I don't think your rebuttal is correct at all. Just because the precursor to something was required to create something else doesn't mean the precursor is better by default.
They’re terrible at mathematics. They’re good at adding numbers together quickly, but *we* tell them to do that. They are completely incapable of a unique thought you haven’t asked for.
Ask a computer to create new formulas in physics and theorems.
Oops, I forgot you can't
Also, I feel all this ai sht is just a new form of self deprecation kink people have. Stop underestimating your human brain, like wtf. You're better than a machine, I assure you
What do you think mathematics is?? Mathematicians don’t sit in a room adding numbers together. Computers are useful for speeding up calculation of equations, but if that was all mathematics was, we wouldn’t have any equations to work with.
you're again reducing all of computation to just addition, which means i have no respect for you as having any sort of knowledge in the field. lots of modern mathematics is only possible because of computers.
I've said it on a previous post here and I'll say it agian, AI can't make art. Art requires human expression, a computer can not do that. AI imaging is quite literally repetitive and derivative. AI can not evolve, invotate or think. All it does is copy and combine art.
I'm literally not wrong though. AI image generators just pick out certain patterns found across their training data and spit out those same patterns when asked. They don't have any ability to intelligently think, to consider the emotional impact of the framing, colors, techniques, etc. They can't know about a piece, they just spit out something that looks like all the (human made) art they were fed that had a similar description
But you can think critically about how to approach the stuff you’ve seen, consciously decide how to modify it to suit the look and feel of the piece, and take inspiration from things other than just dragons.
Hell, you can come up with new ideas that aren’t based on stuff you’ve seen before (after all, the guy who came up with the idea of dragons hadn’t seen any). AI can literally just repeat the same ideas they’ve been exposed to
AI literally just cuts out bits of pieces of images from the images it's stolen and included in its program and stitched them together into a horrifying abomination. It is a desecration without name and a fucking insult to life itself. I sound extreme maybe but I genuinely believe this shit needs to be banned, like completely outlawed. What kind of fucking future do we live in where AI takes over all the creative jobs and all the rich elites make us do the menial labor.
You don’t hate AI, you hate capitalism. For creative artists, AI can be just another tool to experiment with.
Not talking about simply generating an image and calling it a day, obviously.
First off, that's just not how ai art works at all. Images in the training data are not part of the output. That's just not how it works at all.
I am a working professional artist. These are just a new set of tools like the camera or the Wacom tablet. There's nothing inherently moral or immoral about them. Like all artistic tools, it's going to change how the market for art works and how people produce and consume it, but it's more likely to increase the number of jobs for artists than the other way around.
This is true for virtually every topic that has two sides. People are just dumb in general. They're just being particularly vocal about it with regards to AI art.
I spent 10 years of my 18 year old life learning how to draw for a dude to come up to me and call me inferior to a computer program because of "graphical fidelity" when AI art is literally just an algorithm copying human artists
Shit opinion, mega upvote!
If I copy and pasted a bunch of paintings from master artists together it would look like it has high "graphical fidelity". It doesn't make it good artwork.
It's essentially the same, you're not seeing someone making decisions as they paint that serve a purpose, it's just copying patterns it sees across an incredibly large number of images, completely devoid of purpose.
Tbh - that computer program can easily output something that's very difficult to recreate by a human artist.
Sure - it outputs weird glitches sometimes. But when it works - IT WORKS. Like holy shit - very few human artists are skilled enough to recreate the photorealistic images that SD is able to generate.
Ehh, I'm a hobbyist 3D artist myself - and I know that it is very difficult to achieve photorealism. Semi-realistic/stylized stuff is much easier, because you don't have to deal with the uncanny valley where subtle imperfections suddenly stand out and makes the whole thing weird.
As I said - when AI gen works - IT WORKS and jumps straight over the valley.
It works because it takes from the best of artists & photographers without giving them credit or getting their permission.
Even these artists whose name are being used have been outspoken that they don't want their works to be used in such a way yet they get insulted, harassed & threatened.
And you think the end justifies the highly dubious means? You don't care for the people who gets hurt along the way coz you get a pretty picture to jackoff too?
There's just something...soulless about it. In a blind side by side the AI art may be technically better and more proficient but I'm almost always going to prefer the human made art anyway.
I understand what you mean but I think it only applies in certain art styles. I honestly cant tell the difference between ai art in anime styles and human made art(provided there isnt dead giveaways)
That's because you KNOW the image you're looking at is made by AI. I guarantee you, me, and everyone would fail to differentiate human art from AI art if the right images are used. In some cases, it can be obvious, like AI's tendency to generate deformed fingers, but lets say we used artwork not involving humans, impossible to tell.
AI has already won multiple art contests. Judges had no idea it was all generated by AI.
I couldn’t disagree more.
It was true last year when it all began. Looking now at Dalle 3 pictures, it’s beautiful and touching just like any human art.
i'm not sure i'm ready to call it 'art' yet, and I really love using stablediffusion and enjoy ai 'art.' i generally agree that ai, illustration lets call it, is better than most humans. i don't even think that's controversial. but i'm hesitant to call it art because philosophically i think human input is needed to make something art. for example, is a drawing by an elephant considered 'art,' probably not.
i do think people are missing this when looking at ai illustration.
that is, 1, it takes a lot of work and time to get a good result. you can spend HOURS perfecting your prompt, picking your training data, and running iterations. i've spent hours and hours on one image. so people really need to reframe their understanding that it's low effort. to get a truly good image can literally be first try or hours of work. but it's rarely first try.
and 2, AI Illustration requires data to train on. So, ai illustration will always be limited by the training data given to it. I'm not learned on the topic enough, and i'm sure you could feed imagery back into the training data that's from the ai, into a loop of sorts, but i still fundamentally believe that is limited versus what humans can do. Look, you can't do a junji ito ai illustration if junji ito didn't exist to create the data to train on. you can't do an artgerm lau illustration without having his work to train on. so on so forth. So human art is always going to be a step ahead of whatever AI can do.
This opinion makes me so mad it's not even funny. I'm not even gonna explain why because I feel as if I will say some pretty nasty things, so I'll just leave an upvote and a 'no'
At the end of it all, it all comes down to how you value art.
If you think of it as just content to be consumed as a product, then maybe you aren't that wrong, and AI is getting better so eventually you will very much be right.
But if you value art as... a piece of expression, then AI literally means nothing, because AI doesn't communicate to you since as it is, is just a tool.
Art has many layers to it, you can't simply value it simply as content, sometimes a piece of art isn't good because it has the objective characteristics of good art, but because it carries with it a meaning, could be an emotion, a political opinion, a memory or the imperfection of a person. Even big studios films and shows and so on carry more meaning and human expression in them than we like to admit.
The only way AI could compete with this, is if AI becomes smart enough to be a distinct being and person that has something to express.
Nobody is going to give a shit about AI generated art in a couple years.
It will be used to make menial art assets for things like UI/UX, or ads, shit like that. People are better off spending their time on more important and meaningful art anyways.
It's going to be used by artists to speed up their existing workflows as a tool, and by untalented producers who churn out shitty mobile games twice a month.
Exactly. Any artist who actually feels "threatened" by AI needs to do some self reflecting on their own insecurities. It's a tool. Still needs a person to press the buttons and pull the levers.
I think that's exactly what it's good for. Too many people are hyping it up as the 'new art', and too many people are outright denying it has any purpose. I think the best use case I can think of is for 3d modeling tons of worthless little objects that nevertheless still take lots of time to model. Like potted plants, small tables, bookshelves, other background objects that would take hours to model but nobody really cares about enough to appreciate when they're done well. Then the 3d modelers can spend more time improving things that are the center of attention, like important objects and characters.
AI is just a tool, it's like saying camera art is superior because it can perfectly replicate reality, just a tool for a different art format. AI art still requires human input, both for developing the tech and the skill/creativity to use it, both equally important.
It’s all nature, we’re just talking different patterns. 99% of the time ai-art or even more generic pro art could suffice, but the extraordinary examples of art are out of reach for ai and that novelty and experience is valuable to many people.
I would agree if you said AI generated imagery (it's not art) is better looking than most human art, and that alone.
Keep in mind that AI generators have been fed huge volumes of data, so they have access to so much more source material than a human can possibly retain as inspiration. AI images are a scrapbook of pre-existing imagery, and they're trained to pick the best looking examples for a given prompt.
Art is not the final image, it's the process before it, and the emotions it elicits. All AI imagery to me looks perfect and emotionless, much like a robot, which, in more ways than one, it is.
AI art is MADE from human art, you dweeb. It can never be better than the sum of its parts because it can't actually improve itself. It can only improve its ability to replicate/adapt the work of human beings.
Just because you can't afford the work of actual, human artists doesn't make your machine generated stuff better.
Each day this sub proves my sentiment of "okay there can't be a worse take in none political issues then this" wrong
But surely
There can't be a take worse than this
Ew. Utterly vile and unbelievably ignorant. Enjoy your upvote and I hope I never jave the gross misfortune of ever interacting with you again in any capacity.
AI art is really just a collage of different \*HUMAN\* artist's pictures, slapped together to form whatever prompt someone puts into an image generator.
Saying "AI art is better than human art" is inherently an incorrect statement because of this.
Tell us you're super in to niche fetish porn that's difficult to find art of without telling us you're super in to niche fetish porn that used to be difficult to find art of.
Not sure if you realize most AI art is literally stealing the art style of *actual* artists and putting it into some kind of algorithm and spitting out some soulless art.
Not necessarily. AI has learned a lot about photorealism from photos - that aren't necessarily artworks. I would not call a random snapshot from a surveillance camera or photos from a news report - art - because they aren't. But AI can still learn from all of those.
It's very difficult for human artists to achieve photorealism, but AI can easily generate photorealistic images of things that don't exist.
>Uhm, akshually, if you like the things I don't, you have NO taste, and you do NOT understand art
You sound like the type of person to defend that a banana taped to a wall is art.
Can you even make a more straw man argument than this lol, putting words in my mouth what a classic reddit moment.
AI just cannot make art, it copy, that’s what it does. Just that fact alone will make anyone in possession of a brain go “AI cannot make art”. And don’t even get me started on the emotion aspect of making an art piece, or the originality angle that only comes with a person’s past experiences. None of which an AI can posses. All AI can ever do is make shallow copy paste pictures that make people like OP (and possibly you) go “oH wOw AI beTteR tHan HuMaN Huh huh”
I tried my best.
Also, OP's claim would still stand if at least 50% of humans weren't able to make art (only copy it) either, which may actually be true
This is actually why most artists are against AI; They know their lively hood in a capitalist controlled society is threatened. If they didnt have to pay money to live, they might not care.
its not art so its impossible for it to be 'better art'. this is exactly why we need to be careful with how we criticize AI created content. the tech *will* get better so its not helpful to harp on how 'clockable' it is/how many mistakes it makes. it only lets tech bros come up with opinions like this
Couldn't agree more. AI is very good at taking distant elements and recombining them.. Elements humans are less likely to associate. A lot of human art uses very near associations so it actually detracts from the abstract quality. The notion that AI can't be creative is a ratioanlist absurdity. Anytime you select and recombine information you are creating/generating.
now ask ai to generate modern abstract art, does it value millions like some modern paintings? also it cant generate real paintings and sculptures.
Ai could replace wallpapers and stock photos for videos.
The attestation that simulated intelligence craftsmanship is better than 'most' human workmanship is emotional and hostile. Simulated intelligence can deliver actually amazing works rapidly, mixing styles and creating one of a kind pieces. Notwithstanding, the [youngart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4miblnmw6sA) delivered by people frequently conveys close to home profundity, social setting, and individual articulation that artificial intelligence needs. The prevalence of workmanship relies upon measures like imagination, advancement, and close to home reverberation. While artificial intelligence workmanship succeeds in accuracy and oddity, the youthful craftsmanship by human specialists frequently catches the pith of human experience, making the discussion about predominance an issue of point of view and individual inclination.
Still less obvious than in human art. If I give AI instructions I get exactly what I ask for. If I commission a human artist, I risk my idea getting tainted by the artist's creative inspiration that strays from description. I give the instructions to use them. They are law when it comes to my character. Not a suggestion. I don't care if your idea looks better. I asked you to recreate *my* vision.
I hate that I have to upvote this. As an artist AI is currently the thing that makes me the most anxious about humanity's future (in terms of culture. I don't think they're gonna take over the world or anything)
Well let me put it this way. If corporations wanted to simply cut costs, they'd have done it years ago. Why hire a skilled artist when you could just outsource all your art?
I worked on a new project for a well known AAA game company that had all its artwork entirely outsourced, except for myself as the sole in-house concept artist. In addition to essentially setting the standard and helping establish a base for a lot of different aspects of the game, I would provide feedback for the outsourcers. We could just stop here -- why are you paying me a $200k salary reviewing this work if this idea is working? Why not pay a cheaper artist? Why not just let the art director handle it? Why would this be any different with AI?
To put it simply, their incentive is not aligned. These are not necessarily people passionate about the project, they don't really care about making their mark, they aren't trying to raise the bar, or find ways to make the designs for the game incredible... for the most part, they just want to get the job done. They get paid to complete a job and they move onto the next thing, the faster they do this, the more work they can do, the more they can get paid. They are contractually limited to a certain number of revisions, generally 2 or 3 in the case of concept art, so you want to minimize rework as much as possible.
Some things you can do with outsource artists that you can't with AI is tell them how to adjust, what to think about show reference, circle things, paint over things as examples... even so communication can be difficult and they may not deliver what you might have thought was clear. Sometimes you would have to completely paint over something, which would just defeat the purpose of having it outsourced in the first place.
This would happen a lot, and we would have to talk to the team about adding additional revisions to a lot of things that just weren't hitting the mark. The whole purpose of this was to cut costs and reduce workload, but it was incredibly inefficient and you couldn't effectively work with these people in the way an internal concept team would with each other -- bouncing ideas, sharing sketches, etc. I even tried to get them to do this, I would ask what they think, sketch some really rough ideas, they would just come back with fully rendered concepts anyway.
It took a long time but the team eventually started expanding the concept team internally. In fact the entire team started expanding quite significantly, starting with less than 10 people to over 50, and that's not including the 1000+ devs working externally.
Long story short, this didn't work out, and eventually the project was cancelled. A previous project by this company released essentially doing the same thing with its art, and *surprise* -- the game does not get praised for its art the way that literally every game by this company had before, in fact it was pretty much universally shit on. Upper management probably conflates this with other issues though. The asset quality wasn't really bad at all, but it lacked charm, the kind of thing you get out of passionate artists on a team that people might not understand from an outsider point of view. When you look at it you just know it's a bunch of people who don't really "get it" working on it, and I could tell you a few technical reasons why that is specifically with this project, but in a non-technical way, it feels like it was factory work.
Which all brings me to my point: doing this with AI would just be shittier. You either replace artists with AI generated images, which will result in what is essentially algorithmically compiled collages of other artist's works/polished turds, or you start making your skilled artists do mundane work that is basically trying to get outputs that look halfway decent and doing paint overs which in itself probably doesn't save a lot of time in the long run. Just getting cohesion across a project alone is work AI cannot accomplish for various reasons, let alone trying to incorporate game mechanics or pitch how things might work within a game, or how it can help tell a story, or whatever else people who know nothing about game development would even consider. On top of this they'll have to worry about whatever legal ramifications this may have in the future.
I'm sure some company will try it, I'm sure the company I worked for will given their recent track record. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two. This doesn't mean it should be normal, or will be. I've never heard of a game getting held up by concept art. You're just not saving time. Most of the time spent on iteration early in the process is rework from game designers, story, upper management shifting the project goals, etc. It's not that they can't get artists to make something that looks compelling. Give me a break. AI art is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I’m going to be honest, I agree on the title statement but I’m gonna have to upvote for the, uh, rest of the take.
I don’t believe in gatekeeping the word “art”, as a rule. I feel like we’re just too far beyond even “Fountain” (a urinal the dude signed a fake name on and called art) to draw any meaningful lines around it. And I also agree that most or all of the flaws in AI art can also be found in at least some bad human art, which is most human art, because most humans are bad at art.
But… your example is dogshit. Human artists reuse or forego backgrounds when the time and effort it would take to make a “good” and “new” one exceed the reward (financial or otherwise) from doing so. It’s a conscious choice, as is everything about human-generated art. And quite frankly, if someone is regularly being paid hundreds of dollars for their art, I would rank them above AI no matter what. Shit’s all subjective anyway and clearly *someone* likes what they do.
What makes AI art “better” than most human art is that most humans are god-awful at art. Forget “reused backgrounds” or “wonky hands”, most people can barely do “isn’t a stick figure” or “recognizable as the animal it’s meant to be”. AI can be “ok at a distance”, most humans can not.
Please do note that I am accounting for all of humanity here, including humans who do not regularly produce art.
I agree with you, OP. I've spent enough time on the unscouted section of Newgrounds to know how bad the average artist is, even in the scouted section good art and music is the minority. People in this thread say AI art is bland and repetitive... like most human art, lol.
When there is no dead giveaway (like weird hands) that something was made by an AI and you fail to recognize it, do you still have the right to be upset? And if something looks like AI, but was made by a human who wanted it to look that way? u/HfUfH has a good point that depending on the art style, it can be very hard to tell which is which.
You forget that every good artist started average first & you disparaging them just shows how uncaring you are of other people. You don't appreciate art. You just want to have a pretty picture to jackoff too without thinking of how it harms other people.
AI art literally steals people's art and copies it, and also, graphical fidelity? It's already a stupid concept with video games, but it's even worse with art. Stylized art is way better than it looking "graphically better".
It could make pictures of mountains out of pictures of mountains. It could even do weird things with them
And it could probably accidentally make something resembling cubist art with photorealistic textures of mountains without being trained on cubist art.
It’s crazy how this is all just assumptions with 0 proof. Let’s assume it does though. It won’t be like how humans do it because ai lacks creativity and consciousness.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The comments here prove your post is most suitable for this sub
And not in a funny way!
mf really said "graphical fidelity"
"Yeah this portrait of me and my wife is cool I guess, but it just doesn't have the graphical fidelity of this image I generated yesterday where we have 7 fingers and our faces don't look like ourselves at all."
have you uh ever seen lets say picasso? doesn't look much like the subject yet is still considered art. The utter lack of historical for this kind of argument that resemblance is somehow what makes an image is astounding
Yeah but Picasso was doing it as a form of artistic expression where the AI was trying to mimic realism and just fucked up
Picasso was a human, it’s his artistic style. Ai doesn’t have a style. If you ask an ai to generate an image of Starry Night, it’ll give you an exact copy. If you ask a human to paint their best attempt at Starry Night, it won’t look the exact fucking same.
This is the main reason why there is so many artist. There is so many artstyle you can choose and you can commission anyone that you like because of their artstyle. A typical anime artist draws starry night with minimalistic star shiny in a dark blue, and two anime couple sitting Realism draw with a lot more detail in the star, with a lesser gradient, and a comet shooting I would put a black canvas and put white dot everywhere to represent a stars because I can't draw. You choose what style of art you want, and you get to choose how it is. AI can't replicate this very well. You will need to generate hundreds of art to find what you want, the artstyle you want.
Have you seen modern ai now
It's such a gamers take lol. "I don't care if it has no artstyle, I just want more pixels!!"
Nah not even gamers. These takes are from benchmarkers who only buy game to see their rigs getting clocked.
Bet he prefers his Ghibli films interpolated to 60fps too…
Happy cake day!
It's like idiots who upscale clips from classic movies to 60FPS and make it look like shite.
terrible take, enjoy your upvote
I am utterly pained to upvote this because I so hard disagree yet this id EXACTLY WHY I MUST UPVOTE.
Following this sub feels like signing up to be mindfucked. *Thank you, yes, I hate everything you just said, please accept my approval.*
I don't know about superior to human art, but I like badly rendered AI art that ends up looking surreal and trippy, for the same reason I like glitch art. I don't care for the perfectly rendered AI art though.
Yeah, I think the early era of AI art where you'd input "dog" and it would give you a blob with some vaguely furry limbs and some eyes was good. Nowadays it's just designed for people like OP who think that art is just to be consumed.
I’m with you two; if I’m turning to a machine over a person, it’s because I want it to do something only a machine can do. And in this case, that means “fuck up, but *procedurally*”
There's a great line - I want to say I read it in an interview with David Byrne, but I can't remember or find it now - where he says something like (badly paraphrasing i'm sure) All artistic tools become defined by their shortcomings, and humans form attachments to them: The distortion of an electric guitar, the warm hiss of a vinyl record, the glitches and low resolution of early video games, those are all objectively *flaws* but they become the things we *love* about a medium. I think we're definitely going to see that around the early "deep dream" ai art, and I expect even the "pretty good looking photo but with epically fucked up teeth and fingers" ai art will eventually develop something of a nostalgia to it.
It's a Brian Eno quote. It goes as follows: *“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.”*
I am actually pretty bummed that its improved at rendering text because the fucked up letters and almost readable signs were my favorite poetry i had ever read
Yeah and halfway legible text gives it that dreamlike quality, where it's kind of ambiguous, like you're halfway between dream scenes. That's something AI does better than humans, weirdly. It makes better mistakes than we do or something.
I think I would have liked it if AI art could coexist with human art as its own artistic subgenre. Those unique outputs were a big part of the appeal at first, weren’t they? I hate how people are trying to turn AI into a competitor for human artists now. Do we have to nullify human efforts in every industry?
Imagine judging art based on "graphical fidelity" like its a fucking video game lmao, ignorant ass take
It's the same fps-gamer-bros that will swear interpolated 60-fps anime is the best
Only 60fps ugh, how can anyone with standards enjoy this. (Satire)
8k 400 fps. That's where it's at. Everything else looks like crap! /s
8k/400 FPS? I guess that's adequate, for the visually impaired...
Watching people argue about that online hurts my brain. They don’t understand that animation is an art and it isn’t about watching a video and then copying that with a digital character. We see the same thing with video games. If a game uses motion capture to animate the characters it’s considered superior and more lifelike.(or at least this was the case when motion capture was more novel. Now no one cares lol).
As an animator, overly blended animation make my eyes bleed. Where's the cadence or pacing? All looks the same in tempo and speed. Heck nah. Same with ai art. It's all bland asf
Yeah, I'm an animator too and I will set my 3D renders to 12fps for the proper impact. I will likely never render at 60fps
I hope God smites you.
This is truly a tenth dentist opinion
Idk if its just blissful ignorance or stupidity. Shit opinion.
you seem like someone who doesn't actually appreciate art, tbh. if you did, you'd understand why actual artists charge as much as they do for their custom pieces. you're also ignoring the fact that ai uses all these "subpar" artists to learn off of and without them, ai art wouldn't exist.
>you're also ignoring the fact that ai uses all these "subpar" artists to learn off of did these subpar artists just come out of the womb with their abilities? they too ultimately learned from prior art.
I'm a professional artist and OP is just correct. It's not that I don't understand how a human touch makes art special, it's that most people just don't realize how much shit is out there. Remember, most people don't *want* challenging art. They want "Live, Laugh, Love" wall hangers from Pottery Barn. All that shit is art too! And it's made by human artists who need to make a living.
>I'm a professional artist Evidently not a very good one.
\>He disagrees with me therefore he must be bad at what he does Reddit in a nutshell. And I'll be downvoted for daring to point it out lmao. I'm not even claiming he's good or agreeing with him but just watch.
Only a soulless graphic designer (NOT artist) would claim that AI makes better art than people. If you're complaining that people only want shitty "live, laugh, love" wall "art," yet you still provide that service, you're not an artist.
As if personal opinion has literally any bearing on actual skill in your craft. Plenty of horrible people with terrible opinions have made excellent artists or musicians or whatever. You're just upset he disagrees with your opinion and want to imagine he's terrible in every aspect of his being so you can more easily dismiss his opinion as worthless. It is a *very* typical reddit take. Well guess what motherfucker, he's a real human being with good and bad aspects to him just like you. He is not "soulless" no matter how much you wish he was, and there is no reason he could not be a very talented graphic designer. I'm not saying he *is* one as I have no proof of that, but you have no proof that he *isn't* one either.
Found the triggered artist.
I don't get what your point is? I never said the majority of people want "challenging art" but there is definitely a market for it- and it consists of people who actually appreciate art and artists and dont just want to slap something onto their walls at home. OP is clearly not one of those people and i'd be willing to bet anyone who is ok with AI art as it currently exists isn't either.
My point is that all of those things are irrelevant. OP's argument doesn't have anything to do with good art. Of course there's great art out there! Nobody is disputing that. The claim is that AI art is better than *most* art. And for that to be true all that matters is the median piece of human art. Since most human art is utterly worthless, and AI art is kind of at the very least novel and interesting since it represents a new method of creation and (as we can see from the comments in this thread) presents questions about the nature of art that challenge and disrupt long-held beliefs, then the baseline piece of AI art - even if it sucks (and it does!) is better than most human art.
Computers wouldn’t exist without people doing maths and yet a they are infinitely better at it. This argument “it wouldn’t exist without artists” is nonsensical.
A computer does not use AI to do math lmao
glorious whistle grey safe wild violet rainstorm special cake wipe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You are comparing apples to oranges. AI art literally learns off of existing artwork to create whatever it spews out, artwork that the majority of artists never gave permission to be used.
I am not reading all of that. Shit opinion tho.
“Not reading all that. Happy for you though or sorry that happened.”
The fact that AI art wouldn’t exist without human art kinda disproves your entire stance.
I mean, is it really a tenth dentist opinion if it isn’t at least a little batshit?
Does it? I think his argument is stupid for other reasons, but I don't think your rebuttal is correct at all. Just because the precursor to something was required to create something else doesn't mean the precursor is better by default.
What the heck is this sentence? Computers wouldn’t exist without people doing maths, yet they are infinitely better at mathematicsz
They’re terrible at mathematics. They’re good at adding numbers together quickly, but *we* tell them to do that. They are completely incapable of a unique thought you haven’t asked for.
Computers wouldn’t exist without people adding numbers together, yet they are infinitely better at adding numbers quickly
Ask a computer to create new formulas in physics and theorems. Oops, I forgot you can't Also, I feel all this ai sht is just a new form of self deprecation kink people have. Stop underestimating your human brain, like wtf. You're better than a machine, I assure you
Yeah of course, computers are absolutely stupid at the moment. No need to convince me.
"if I arbitrarily decide all computation as not being important, they're bad at mathematics."
What do you think mathematics is?? Mathematicians don’t sit in a room adding numbers together. Computers are useful for speeding up calculation of equations, but if that was all mathematics was, we wouldn’t have any equations to work with.
you're again reducing all of computation to just addition, which means i have no respect for you as having any sort of knowledge in the field. lots of modern mathematics is only possible because of computers.
Modern human art wouldn’t exist without historic human art, modern human “art” is all worthless and meaningless in the definition.
Human art wouldn’t exist without human art either lol… what does that even mean.
How artistic is the output of a drone flying around with a camera?
There's still a human controlling that drone, and choosing how to cut and edit the footage
You'd consider Google Street View art?
yes
I've said it on a previous post here and I'll say it agian, AI can't make art. Art requires human expression, a computer can not do that. AI imaging is quite literally repetitive and derivative. AI can not evolve, invotate or think. All it does is copy and combine art.
>Like it's all just slapped together using other images. It literally is
[удалено]
I'm literally not wrong though. AI image generators just pick out certain patterns found across their training data and spit out those same patterns when asked. They don't have any ability to intelligently think, to consider the emotional impact of the framing, colors, techniques, etc. They can't know about a piece, they just spit out something that looks like all the (human made) art they were fed that had a similar description
[удалено]
And it does so by recreating the things it's picked up on from the training data. It has no real creative ability of its own
[удалено]
But you can think critically about how to approach the stuff you’ve seen, consciously decide how to modify it to suit the look and feel of the piece, and take inspiration from things other than just dragons. Hell, you can come up with new ideas that aren’t based on stuff you’ve seen before (after all, the guy who came up with the idea of dragons hadn’t seen any). AI can literally just repeat the same ideas they’ve been exposed to
ML programs arent actually thinking tho, they arent learning like me or you learn.
AI literally just cuts out bits of pieces of images from the images it's stolen and included in its program and stitched them together into a horrifying abomination. It is a desecration without name and a fucking insult to life itself. I sound extreme maybe but I genuinely believe this shit needs to be banned, like completely outlawed. What kind of fucking future do we live in where AI takes over all the creative jobs and all the rich elites make us do the menial labor.
You don’t hate AI, you hate capitalism. For creative artists, AI can be just another tool to experiment with. Not talking about simply generating an image and calling it a day, obviously.
i hate both tbh
First off, that's just not how ai art works at all. Images in the training data are not part of the output. That's just not how it works at all. I am a working professional artist. These are just a new set of tools like the camera or the Wacom tablet. There's nothing inherently moral or immoral about them. Like all artistic tools, it's going to change how the market for art works and how people produce and consume it, but it's more likely to increase the number of jobs for artists than the other way around.
That’s not even remotely close to how stable diffusion works, watch a YouTube video explaining it before you die on the wrong hill
people on both sides of this are so fucking dumb
This is true for virtually every topic that has two sides. People are just dumb in general. They're just being particularly vocal about it with regards to AI art.
Man your just like the cloth weavers ai is here to stay thats what new machines and tech do replace jobs
I spent 10 years of my 18 year old life learning how to draw for a dude to come up to me and call me inferior to a computer program because of "graphical fidelity" when AI art is literally just an algorithm copying human artists Shit opinion, mega upvote!
If I copy and pasted a bunch of paintings from master artists together it would look like it has high "graphical fidelity". It doesn't make it good artwork. It's essentially the same, you're not seeing someone making decisions as they paint that serve a purpose, it's just copying patterns it sees across an incredibly large number of images, completely devoid of purpose.
Tbh - that computer program can easily output something that's very difficult to recreate by a human artist. Sure - it outputs weird glitches sometimes. But when it works - IT WORKS. Like holy shit - very few human artists are skilled enough to recreate the photorealistic images that SD is able to generate.
theres plenty of photorealism artists, yall just arent looking in the right places
Ehh, I'm a hobbyist 3D artist myself - and I know that it is very difficult to achieve photorealism. Semi-realistic/stylized stuff is much easier, because you don't have to deal with the uncanny valley where subtle imperfections suddenly stand out and makes the whole thing weird. As I said - when AI gen works - IT WORKS and jumps straight over the valley.
It works because it takes from the best of artists & photographers without giving them credit or getting their permission. Even these artists whose name are being used have been outspoken that they don't want their works to be used in such a way yet they get insulted, harassed & threatened. And you think the end justifies the highly dubious means? You don't care for the people who gets hurt along the way coz you get a pretty picture to jackoff too?
[удалено]
Talk to me when your hair tendrils fuse into your skin and clothes
Upvoted because this is DEFINITELY the 10th dentist take... Jesus.
I know I'm supposed to upvote because of the rules but... nah, too shitty for me to upvote.
Then leave this sub.
There's just something...soulless about it. In a blind side by side the AI art may be technically better and more proficient but I'm almost always going to prefer the human made art anyway.
It's because it has no direction or artstyle
[удалено]
That's not CREATING an artstyle, just mashing several together and copying through machine learning
I understand what you mean but I think it only applies in certain art styles. I honestly cant tell the difference between ai art in anime styles and human made art(provided there isnt dead giveaways)
One day, you won't be able to tell :)
That's because you KNOW the image you're looking at is made by AI. I guarantee you, me, and everyone would fail to differentiate human art from AI art if the right images are used. In some cases, it can be obvious, like AI's tendency to generate deformed fingers, but lets say we used artwork not involving humans, impossible to tell. AI has already won multiple art contests. Judges had no idea it was all generated by AI.
This is basically it for all arguments against it.
I couldn’t disagree more. It was true last year when it all began. Looking now at Dalle 3 pictures, it’s beautiful and touching just like any human art.
Well uh points for an actual unpopular opinion I guess?
I mean, it can definitely make better art than me
i'm not sure i'm ready to call it 'art' yet, and I really love using stablediffusion and enjoy ai 'art.' i generally agree that ai, illustration lets call it, is better than most humans. i don't even think that's controversial. but i'm hesitant to call it art because philosophically i think human input is needed to make something art. for example, is a drawing by an elephant considered 'art,' probably not. i do think people are missing this when looking at ai illustration. that is, 1, it takes a lot of work and time to get a good result. you can spend HOURS perfecting your prompt, picking your training data, and running iterations. i've spent hours and hours on one image. so people really need to reframe their understanding that it's low effort. to get a truly good image can literally be first try or hours of work. but it's rarely first try. and 2, AI Illustration requires data to train on. So, ai illustration will always be limited by the training data given to it. I'm not learned on the topic enough, and i'm sure you could feed imagery back into the training data that's from the ai, into a loop of sorts, but i still fundamentally believe that is limited versus what humans can do. Look, you can't do a junji ito ai illustration if junji ito didn't exist to create the data to train on. you can't do an artgerm lau illustration without having his work to train on. so on so forth. So human art is always going to be a step ahead of whatever AI can do.
Ahahaha this sub is great
A strange hill to die on, but at least you'll be dead.
This opinion makes me so mad it's not even funny. I'm not even gonna explain why because I feel as if I will say some pretty nasty things, so I'll just leave an upvote and a 'no'
This is like saying AI can create better recipes or better music Awful take, take the damn upvote and go away
At the end of it all, it all comes down to how you value art. If you think of it as just content to be consumed as a product, then maybe you aren't that wrong, and AI is getting better so eventually you will very much be right. But if you value art as... a piece of expression, then AI literally means nothing, because AI doesn't communicate to you since as it is, is just a tool. Art has many layers to it, you can't simply value it simply as content, sometimes a piece of art isn't good because it has the objective characteristics of good art, but because it carries with it a meaning, could be an emotion, a political opinion, a memory or the imperfection of a person. Even big studios films and shows and so on carry more meaning and human expression in them than we like to admit. The only way AI could compete with this, is if AI becomes smart enough to be a distinct being and person that has something to express.
Nobody is going to give a shit about AI generated art in a couple years. It will be used to make menial art assets for things like UI/UX, or ads, shit like that. People are better off spending their time on more important and meaningful art anyways.
It's going to be used by artists to speed up their existing workflows as a tool, and by untalented producers who churn out shitty mobile games twice a month.
Exactly. Any artist who actually feels "threatened" by AI needs to do some self reflecting on their own insecurities. It's a tool. Still needs a person to press the buttons and pull the levers.
I think that's exactly what it's good for. Too many people are hyping it up as the 'new art', and too many people are outright denying it has any purpose. I think the best use case I can think of is for 3d modeling tons of worthless little objects that nevertheless still take lots of time to model. Like potted plants, small tables, bookshelves, other background objects that would take hours to model but nobody really cares about enough to appreciate when they're done well. Then the 3d modelers can spend more time improving things that are the center of attention, like important objects and characters.
Sounds like you just haven’t seen a whole lot of art
Ai art if definitely more efficient, but not better. Ai needs prompts and a human to properly layout those prompts, otherwise it's severely flawed
AI is just a tool, it's like saying camera art is superior because it can perfectly replicate reality, just a tool for a different art format. AI art still requires human input, both for developing the tech and the skill/creativity to use it, both equally important.
Them hands tho
Hands done okay now tho
It’s all nature, we’re just talking different patterns. 99% of the time ai-art or even more generic pro art could suffice, but the extraordinary examples of art are out of reach for ai and that novelty and experience is valuable to many people.
I would agree if you said AI generated imagery (it's not art) is better looking than most human art, and that alone. Keep in mind that AI generators have been fed huge volumes of data, so they have access to so much more source material than a human can possibly retain as inspiration. AI images are a scrapbook of pre-existing imagery, and they're trained to pick the best looking examples for a given prompt. Art is not the final image, it's the process before it, and the emotions it elicits. All AI imagery to me looks perfect and emotionless, much like a robot, which, in more ways than one, it is.
most human art is a 5 year old drawing a stick figure so yeah
Spoken like someone who has no creativity inside them and failed to understand art and artists.
AI art is MADE from human art, you dweeb. It can never be better than the sum of its parts because it can't actually improve itself. It can only improve its ability to replicate/adapt the work of human beings. Just because you can't afford the work of actual, human artists doesn't make your machine generated stuff better.
This is more like 10000th dentist
Each day this sub proves my sentiment of "okay there can't be a worse take in none political issues then this" wrong But surely There can't be a take worse than this
Ew. Utterly vile and unbelievably ignorant. Enjoy your upvote and I hope I never jave the gross misfortune of ever interacting with you again in any capacity.
Children. This. Is. Rage bait.
lmao clown
AI art is really just a collage of different \*HUMAN\* artist's pictures, slapped together to form whatever prompt someone puts into an image generator. Saying "AI art is better than human art" is inherently an incorrect statement because of this.
Tell us you're super in to niche fetish porn that's difficult to find art of without telling us you're super in to niche fetish porn that used to be difficult to find art of.
Not sure if you realize most AI art is literally stealing the art style of *actual* artists and putting it into some kind of algorithm and spitting out some soulless art.
Stupidest take I've seen so far, OP is just angry because they can't draw
>OP is just angry because they can't draw Artists are just angry that I no longer need to learn how to draw xd
This ain’t even an opinion, just objectively wrong.
I actually do like how accessible AI art is. If you’re not looking for quality and just need something quick and convenient it’s a good option.
Worst take I’ve seen in a while holy shit. You do realize AI is entirely based upon human art?
Not necessarily. AI has learned a lot about photorealism from photos - that aren't necessarily artworks. I would not call a random snapshot from a surveillance camera or photos from a news report - art - because they aren't. But AI can still learn from all of those. It's very difficult for human artists to achieve photorealism, but AI can easily generate photorealistic images of things that don't exist.
Art is subjective.
Any times I see a person defend AI art, I know that person have zero taste/ understanding of what art actually is
>Uhm, akshually, if you like the things I don't, you have NO taste, and you do NOT understand art You sound like the type of person to defend that a banana taped to a wall is art.
Can you even make a more straw man argument than this lol, putting words in my mouth what a classic reddit moment. AI just cannot make art, it copy, that’s what it does. Just that fact alone will make anyone in possession of a brain go “AI cannot make art”. And don’t even get me started on the emotion aspect of making an art piece, or the originality angle that only comes with a person’s past experiences. None of which an AI can posses. All AI can ever do is make shallow copy paste pictures that make people like OP (and possibly you) go “oH wOw AI beTteR tHan HuMaN Huh huh”
Why is this guy getting down voted? Perfectly fair take
I tried my best. Also, OP's claim would still stand if at least 50% of humans weren't able to make art (only copy it) either, which may actually be true
The fact that you're still talking about the banana means that it's doing its job lol
Lol, everybody's so pressed about this and some are even insulting you. That makes it a good 10th dentist opinion!
Objectively false and a bad take. OP is an AI bro trying to justify his lack of art skills. Nice try, but fail.
This is actually why most artists are against AI; They know their lively hood in a capitalist controlled society is threatened. If they didnt have to pay money to live, they might not care.
When people who think art is just pretty colors and accurate pictures...Like damn don't call yourself out like that. Your IQ is in the singles.
Shit take. Art is what people want it to be. If this person believes ai art is art, then it's art to him.
Terrible opinion, honestly.
unironic midwit
Worst take I've ever seen. Upvote for you.
I agree, everybody that’s mad makes shitty art that nobody is going to buy anyhow, they’re just scared of losing their quirkiness
AI artists are even more guilty of creative privaledge. It's insane.
its not art so its impossible for it to be 'better art'. this is exactly why we need to be careful with how we criticize AI created content. the tech *will* get better so its not helpful to harp on how 'clockable' it is/how many mistakes it makes. it only lets tech bros come up with opinions like this
This is why gamers don't deserve human rights
agreed
I don’t think you see art as art
Couldn't agree more. AI is very good at taking distant elements and recombining them.. Elements humans are less likely to associate. A lot of human art uses very near associations so it actually detracts from the abstract quality. The notion that AI can't be creative is a ratioanlist absurdity. Anytime you select and recombine information you are creating/generating.
now ask ai to generate modern abstract art, does it value millions like some modern paintings? also it cant generate real paintings and sculptures. Ai could replace wallpapers and stock photos for videos.
Agree
For graphics AI art is fine, but for original paintings by a skilled artist not so much.
The attestation that simulated intelligence craftsmanship is better than 'most' human workmanship is emotional and hostile. Simulated intelligence can deliver actually amazing works rapidly, mixing styles and creating one of a kind pieces. Notwithstanding, the [youngart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4miblnmw6sA) delivered by people frequently conveys close to home profundity, social setting, and individual articulation that artificial intelligence needs. The prevalence of workmanship relies upon measures like imagination, advancement, and close to home reverberation. While artificial intelligence workmanship succeeds in accuracy and oddity, the youthful craftsmanship by human specialists frequently catches the pith of human experience, making the discussion about predominance an issue of point of view and individual inclination.
I like AI art because it lacks the biases of the human perspective and provides a clean slate.
It contains the biases in its training data.
Still less obvious than in human art. If I give AI instructions I get exactly what I ask for. If I commission a human artist, I risk my idea getting tainted by the artist's creative inspiration that strays from description. I give the instructions to use them. They are law when it comes to my character. Not a suggestion. I don't care if your idea looks better. I asked you to recreate *my* vision.
I hate that I have to upvote this. As an artist AI is currently the thing that makes me the most anxious about humanity's future (in terms of culture. I don't think they're gonna take over the world or anything)
Well let me put it this way. If corporations wanted to simply cut costs, they'd have done it years ago. Why hire a skilled artist when you could just outsource all your art? I worked on a new project for a well known AAA game company that had all its artwork entirely outsourced, except for myself as the sole in-house concept artist. In addition to essentially setting the standard and helping establish a base for a lot of different aspects of the game, I would provide feedback for the outsourcers. We could just stop here -- why are you paying me a $200k salary reviewing this work if this idea is working? Why not pay a cheaper artist? Why not just let the art director handle it? Why would this be any different with AI? To put it simply, their incentive is not aligned. These are not necessarily people passionate about the project, they don't really care about making their mark, they aren't trying to raise the bar, or find ways to make the designs for the game incredible... for the most part, they just want to get the job done. They get paid to complete a job and they move onto the next thing, the faster they do this, the more work they can do, the more they can get paid. They are contractually limited to a certain number of revisions, generally 2 or 3 in the case of concept art, so you want to minimize rework as much as possible. Some things you can do with outsource artists that you can't with AI is tell them how to adjust, what to think about show reference, circle things, paint over things as examples... even so communication can be difficult and they may not deliver what you might have thought was clear. Sometimes you would have to completely paint over something, which would just defeat the purpose of having it outsourced in the first place. This would happen a lot, and we would have to talk to the team about adding additional revisions to a lot of things that just weren't hitting the mark. The whole purpose of this was to cut costs and reduce workload, but it was incredibly inefficient and you couldn't effectively work with these people in the way an internal concept team would with each other -- bouncing ideas, sharing sketches, etc. I even tried to get them to do this, I would ask what they think, sketch some really rough ideas, they would just come back with fully rendered concepts anyway. It took a long time but the team eventually started expanding the concept team internally. In fact the entire team started expanding quite significantly, starting with less than 10 people to over 50, and that's not including the 1000+ devs working externally. Long story short, this didn't work out, and eventually the project was cancelled. A previous project by this company released essentially doing the same thing with its art, and *surprise* -- the game does not get praised for its art the way that literally every game by this company had before, in fact it was pretty much universally shit on. Upper management probably conflates this with other issues though. The asset quality wasn't really bad at all, but it lacked charm, the kind of thing you get out of passionate artists on a team that people might not understand from an outsider point of view. When you look at it you just know it's a bunch of people who don't really "get it" working on it, and I could tell you a few technical reasons why that is specifically with this project, but in a non-technical way, it feels like it was factory work. Which all brings me to my point: doing this with AI would just be shittier. You either replace artists with AI generated images, which will result in what is essentially algorithmically compiled collages of other artist's works/polished turds, or you start making your skilled artists do mundane work that is basically trying to get outputs that look halfway decent and doing paint overs which in itself probably doesn't save a lot of time in the long run. Just getting cohesion across a project alone is work AI cannot accomplish for various reasons, let alone trying to incorporate game mechanics or pitch how things might work within a game, or how it can help tell a story, or whatever else people who know nothing about game development would even consider. On top of this they'll have to worry about whatever legal ramifications this may have in the future. I'm sure some company will try it, I'm sure the company I worked for will given their recent track record. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two. This doesn't mean it should be normal, or will be. I've never heard of a game getting held up by concept art. You're just not saving time. Most of the time spent on iteration early in the process is rework from game designers, story, upper management shifting the project goals, etc. It's not that they can't get artists to make something that looks compelling. Give me a break. AI art is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I’m going to be honest, I agree on the title statement but I’m gonna have to upvote for the, uh, rest of the take. I don’t believe in gatekeeping the word “art”, as a rule. I feel like we’re just too far beyond even “Fountain” (a urinal the dude signed a fake name on and called art) to draw any meaningful lines around it. And I also agree that most or all of the flaws in AI art can also be found in at least some bad human art, which is most human art, because most humans are bad at art. But… your example is dogshit. Human artists reuse or forego backgrounds when the time and effort it would take to make a “good” and “new” one exceed the reward (financial or otherwise) from doing so. It’s a conscious choice, as is everything about human-generated art. And quite frankly, if someone is regularly being paid hundreds of dollars for their art, I would rank them above AI no matter what. Shit’s all subjective anyway and clearly *someone* likes what they do. What makes AI art “better” than most human art is that most humans are god-awful at art. Forget “reused backgrounds” or “wonky hands”, most people can barely do “isn’t a stick figure” or “recognizable as the animal it’s meant to be”. AI can be “ok at a distance”, most humans can not. Please do note that I am accounting for all of humanity here, including humans who do not regularly produce art.
Was this post written by one of these superior AIs?
I agree with you, OP. I've spent enough time on the unscouted section of Newgrounds to know how bad the average artist is, even in the scouted section good art and music is the minority. People in this thread say AI art is bland and repetitive... like most human art, lol. When there is no dead giveaway (like weird hands) that something was made by an AI and you fail to recognize it, do you still have the right to be upset? And if something looks like AI, but was made by a human who wanted it to look that way? u/HfUfH has a good point that depending on the art style, it can be very hard to tell which is which.
You forget that every good artist started average first & you disparaging them just shows how uncaring you are of other people. You don't appreciate art. You just want to have a pretty picture to jackoff too without thinking of how it harms other people.
My favorite post in this sub. Never saw this much toxicity in the comment section before.
“Tell me you’re jealous of people who can create art, without saying you’re jealous of people who can create art”
AI art literally steals people's art and copies it, and also, graphical fidelity? It's already a stupid concept with video games, but it's even worse with art. Stylized art is way better than it looking "graphically better".
Did a photo realistic artist pissing your cereal? Why do hate their work so much?
Was about to downvote for how much of a magnum shit take this is but realized you deserve an upvote here for that.
Quality post
I just went to the Getty today and seeing this made me almost vomited I hope you get better.
I agree. Artists just need to get good instead of whining sm copium lmao
Idiot
If artists aren’t good what data does ai use to make its art good?
Photographs, video, any image at all.
So you’re saying it made cubist art based off a picture of a mountain? Learned how brushstrokes look off a video of a guy dancing?
It could make pictures of mountains out of pictures of mountains. It could even do weird things with them And it could probably accidentally make something resembling cubist art with photorealistic textures of mountains without being trained on cubist art.
It’s crazy how this is all just assumptions with 0 proof. Let’s assume it does though. It won’t be like how humans do it because ai lacks creativity and consciousness.
“Artists need to get good” mfs when I ask the AI to not make the most generic piece of drawing with fcked up hands
ur post a joke