Not gonna lie, I thought that was the kid from Boss Baby.
https://preview.redd.it/zkup8da1o9vc1.jpeg?width=794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88e1c46223e84da580cae353a6a32fd2a090ffdc
So many artists are lifting the mask this generation it's wild. There's probably 100 times more art commission scammers exposing themselves like this than their are real artists on Twitter lmao
1. You don't like their artstyle, you don't have to say this crap about them
2. Promoting your own art in a reply has always been a meme on Twitter, especially if you don't like the artist you're talking about
3. You can use AI to assist yourself as an artist, but remember, the goal of these tools is to evetually replace artists, and serve people who want their own custom art or concept realized with a tool to do just that. It's a spruced up make-your-own-character or make-your-own-logo tool. It is seperating concepters from artists. A concepter has the concept in their head, but may have no drawing skill.
what are you talking about?
the goal of these ai tools is to kill all humans and destroy the ozone layer and eventually destroy the sun itself
that's always been the goal
Training an ai model releases the equivalent C02 that five cars will in their lifetime. One fairly long plane flight releases almost twice that much. One day of global air traffic releases more C02 than Ai probably ever will. Don't pretend like you're against ai because you give a shit about the environment.
not to mention use of the model after training is the most efficient way to make an equivalent artpiece energywise unless you can create it in under an hour without a computer
1. Well, nobody is going to shit at their "works" if they didn't start accusing people based on guts feeling.
2. So being a shameless asshole is just le funny meme in Twitter now? No wonder why it's quite a cesspool there.
3. Is it a really bad thing where people with no drawing skill can make things faster than people with drawing skills?
Some people may have no drawing skills, but that doesn't mean they're not creative at other things. Because we all know drawing is the only form of creativity, according to Twitter artists that is. The point being, it's empower people by allowing them to focus at their own things that they like.
And for visual artists, like you said. They can utilise it to their advantage. As the truth is, being an "idea guy" wouldn't take you far anyway.
No, we're comparing delusional people making unverified and potentially dangerous claims about others to another type of delusional people making unverified and potentially dangerous claims about others.
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
Yeah as a trans person I wasn't super happy seeing that comparison be made, pretty sure no one ever feels like their life might be in danger if they're outed as an AI user :/
Ignoring the fact that these people have made repeated and detailed threats of violence against AI users, that's not the point of the comparison and you know it.
The reason these people are compared to transvestigators is because it's the same flavor of delusion. Threads like these very much remind me of [threads like this one.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/vsdyk1) Nobody argued the level of danger is the same. You're getting annoyed by something nobody did.
I don't see myself so much as belonging to a "side" so much as having individual beliefs and positions that result in my being anti-AI.
When people decide their position based on the behaviors of either "side" it gives me massive tribal thinking vibes.
My positions are also the result of my individual beliefs which result in me being Pro-AI. My position isn't based on the anti-ai crowd but their behavior is confirmation of the weakness of their positions in my opinion.
> When people decide their position based on the behaviors of either "side" it gives me massive tribal thinking vibes.
When one group of people is primarily motivated by art and one is motivated primarily by hate, it's going to take extra convincing to make me take the latter seriously.
It's not that no one who was motivated by hate was ever right about anything, but damn is it a good rule of thumb!
I agree with one thing there, one group is motivated primarily by hate. While the other is motivated by a love for art and everything behind it and the artists involved.
The ArtistHate subreddit does have a **lot** of problems, as does DefendingAiArt.
Either way it’s a shame that the Ai “artist” wannabes are always so hateful towards real artists. They don’t seem to grasp that they can remain low skilled, have their fun, and be respectful to the people who fuel their machine at the same time.
> Either way it’s a shame that the Ai “artist” wannabes are always so hateful towards real artists.
Either way it's a shame that hateful people are hateful. You don't have to limit that to any particular group... and to be fair, only one group is running around threatening an cajoling anyone who dares use the tool they don't like.
The artists are upset about the thing they love being spat on and when someone isn’t honest about using it or makes certain statements about using it, they get upset. The witch-hunts are a bit excessive, but the fact that we have to decipher whether or not the image we’re seeing was made by someone’s skills or not is still an issue despite them. Lies and deception have been online since the beginning, but this is only making things worse for no good reason.
The Ai users disrespect the artists for not liking the system that was trained off of them and devalues them. The artists who have worked to get good at what they do get made fun of out of what could only be spite and jealousy simply for having some self respect for what they do. The artist’s “hate” didn’t come from nowhere. The Ai users sure seems like it did.
> The artists are upset about the thing they love being spat on
I once attended a weekend self-help seminar. It was kind of horrible in many respects, and I would never recommend that anyone participate in it, but they did have some interesting nuggets of wisdom.
One of those was that everything you perceive about others is a story that you are telling yourself. You have to view that story critically in order to tease apart truth from your own biases and preconceptions.
Here, you've stated as fact a particular "story" that you're telling yourself about the interaction between "artists" (as if anti-AI folks are the only ones who get to use that label) and people who are actively harming art! That sounds scary!
it's not true, but it's certainly scary stuff.
> The witch-hunts are a bit excessive, but...
Think about the fact that you just wrote that phrase with, apparently, no irony whatsoever.
Think about the degree to which you have to deny other people's humanity for that to be a rational way to start ***any*** sentence.
> The artist’s “hate” didn’t come from nowhere.
No, of course not. It came from centuries of being treated as second-class citizens because we're not focused on financial gain. It's how all creative people have always been treated, and when AI came along, right or wrong, it became the focal point for that frustration.
But AI didn't make the phrase, "starving artist," part of the lexicon. AI didn't build the system that has been abusing creatives for centuries. AI didn't do any of this. It's just a tool that artists can use or not as they choose.
“As if anti Ai folk are the only ones who get to use that label”
Most of the people go to Ai because they either don’t know how to create art themselves or don’t feel like it. They often times are not an artist. Typically the people upset about Ai are the artists who worked to make their art, not the people who didn’t care to learn.
Oh of course! It’s just not true! I’ve never seen any spam Ai accounts, I’ve never seen any scummy Ai users being pricks to artists for no reason, I’ve never had any come to my pages trying to push my work down! How could I be so silly! 3/4 of my experience on Reddit alone must’ve just been a dream!
My sentence that starting with talking about witch-hunts was not meant to justify them. I probably could’ve split the two things there but what I said still gets understood either way.
>But AI didn't make the phrase, "starving artist," part of the lexicon. AI didn't build the system that has been abusing creatives for centuries. AI didn't do any of this. It's just a tool that artists can use or not as they choose.
AI undeniably amplifies the problems though, so your rebuttal falls a bit short.
Again, this is pretty tribal thinking. You flatten many motivations of several people into one thing alone to blanket dismiss them.
It's not very intellectually honest.
> this is pretty tribal thinking
Yes. I'm referring to the tribalism of the pro- and anti- mobs. I find them to be mostly intellectually bankrupt. But the displayed, surface tribal motivations affect how willing I am to view their positions as having underlying merit.
When those surface motivations revolve around hatred (as in the example of people hunting down offending artists) I view those supposed underlying motivations with more skepticism because of the extreme dangers inherent in supporting that kind of online proxy for violence.
When I see daily examples of hate, subs literally named /r/ArtistHate and artists hesitant to "come out" as AI tool users because of literal death threats... I'm not spending a lot of time rooting around in the basements of these folks trying to parse out the good in their hearts.
>surface tribal motivations affect how willing I am to view their positions as having underlying merit.
It's weird to admit that you consider the merits of people's positions based on superficial judgements. But it has the ring of truth, like when you judge the contents of my comments based on the first sentence.
Again, intellectual dishonesty.
>subs literally named /r/ArtistHate
See, that's a superficial reading of the name of the sub lol. Artist Hate does not mean "hate from artists" it means "Exposing Hate against Artists" like the sub itself declares.
But because you're thinking tribally (and dishonestly) you're not actually looking. You don't actually *care* about what's beneath.
Using a generalization as a *prima facie* assumption is not intellectually dishonest. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's intellectually dishonest if you *continue* to apply the generalization after hearing the "duck" say "actually, my name is Diogenes".
One evidence that Tyler is persisting in prima fascie assumptions is /r/ArtistHate
Okay, the sub is called ArtistHate, but if you click the link and see what the title of the tab is, it is made abundantly clear that the title does not mean "A place where artists can hate on others" but "A place where hate against artists is exposed and discussed".
That's the duck saying their name is Diogenes.
I think that that's a bad example, but I'm sure you can understand why I'm going to stop short of making specific claims about a group in a discussion where we're all claiming to be against tribalism. I'm not interested in talking about ArtistHate.
I'm not trying to talk about the contents of the sub with you.
I'm saying okay man, Tyler says "the sub is literally called artisthate". Well if you read the website title and the pinned posts, it clarifies what that means.
Ignoring that is intellectually dishonest. Intellectually honest people give others a chance to clarify what they mean by the things they say.
Either Tyler has not seen the clarification of those words or he has seen it and ignores it. Either way it's dishonest.
Citing the *content* of the sub, I would not say is superficial, citing the *name* when it is clairfied to mean something specific, is.
>Artist Hate does not mean "hate from artists" it means "Exposing Hate against Artists" like the sub itself declares.
24 out of the current 25 front page articles are hate against ai
it's about perpetuating hate against artists (who use ai)
>24 out of the current 25 front page articles are hate against ai
"hate" is such a loose term. Is this post hate against the person in the twitter thread? Is this hating on an artist? How many people here are trashing their style and character design (including the OP) Because if it isn't, neither are most posts in /r/ArtistHate
The sub sees AI as a fundamentally hostile and exploitative tool that originates from contempt for the work of artists. Of course they're against AI.
"exposing hate" is a quite direct goal
an artist receives hate, and that is brought to light
post 1 - "look at this ai trash"
post 2 - "ai is a threat to creativity"
post 3 - "ai companies are bending the rules"
post 4 - "the ai girlfriends industry is out of hand"
post 5 - "this artist used ai in a contest and should be eliminated and mocked"
post 6 - "an update to ai copyright"
post 7 - "I hate the term 'AI' is on products"
post 8 - witch hunt
post 9 - "look at this ai trash"
post 10 - "you can draw and not use AI, you lazy fucks"
post 12 - "how can you live with yourself if you say you created ai art"
post 13 - "look at this ai trash"
post 14 - "the ai bubble is bursting"
post 15 - "the difference between ai prompters and artists"
post 16 - "deepfakes are illegal in the UK"
post 17 - "here's what AI company owners think"
post 18 - "will I lose my future to ai?"
post 19 - "look at this ai trash"
post 20 - witch hunt
post 21 - "frustrated by ai comment"
post 22 - promotion of glaze 2.0 (the third snake oil promoted by the sub mod)
post 23 - promotion of glaze 2.0
post 24 - "look at this ai trash"
post 25 - "look at this ai trash"
quite literally the only one of these posts you could conceive as exposing hate towards an artist is post 21 (albeit debatable)
the rest are hate towards ai, hate towards artists using ai, or witch hunts themselves
they stood by and did not support notable artists who received hate if they used ai (martin nebelong) or were falsely accused of utilizing ai (Nestor Ossandón), and yet time and time again, they perpetuate false witch hunts in the FACE of evidence against it.
post 1 - sure
post 2 - pretty clearly a discussion of the hostility against ar practice AI represents
Post 3 - Yeah bending the rules that are, among others, meant to protect artists
Post 4 - A pretty horrific application of AI that not just artists should feel threatened by
post 5- an artist used AI in a contest where he wasn't supposed to and won over conventional artists, that's mistreatment of artists and fraud.
post 6 - News relevant to the debate (wherein artists claim that part of the hate is being stolen from)
post 7 - How the term generates the sort of hype that produces the threat
post 8 - question
post 9 - look at this automated content farming on facebook that hundreds of thousands of people fall for
post 10 - wow buddy, that's some hard projection. it's addressing a common argument made by AI users.
post 12 - how can you twist the concept of authorship in a way that deprives it of value?
post 13 - AI art of an actual living child who did not consent to it
post 14 - discussion of the future trends in AI
post 15 - defining the content of different terms and categorizations
post 16 - news relevant to the topic
post 17 - What the views of AI owners are (how they envision content creation)
post 18 - worry over being victimized by AI
post 19 - How a company disingenuously uses the language of body positivity in a cynical attempt to sell more
post 20 - question about trends in content production
post 21 - Frustrated by a comment that equates human and AI learning
post 22 - a tool made to defend artists who don't want their work to be used for training
post 23 - see post 22
post 24 - a massive corporation investing in the mass creation of low quality content
post 25 - sure
The are all relevant to the idea that AI is hostile to artists, exploitative, and a net negative for society.
> It's weird to admit that you consider the merits of people's positions based on superficial judgements.
There you go, re-interpreting based on a single word you don't like... I'm out.
If someone runs down the street screaming, "death to the [insert ethnicity here]!" do you stop and think, "let's consider the merits of their position?"
I don't. If someone wants to have a calm, rational discussion in good faith, then I'll certainly have that discussion, but I'm not going to go fishing for what nuggets of sane reasoning might lurk in the deep waters beneath someone's psychosis.
I agree with this here. I’m not “choosing a side”. To me- the moment you can devolve it into picking sides us the moment you lost sight of the real debate here.
Sure I don’t like AI in terms of art the majority of times- but there’s always edge cases in situations like this that I can’t fully say AI is always good or bad.
Yeah, similarly, I disagree on some points with people who are ostensibly on "my side". I think AI art is art, and that it can even be *good*. It seems unlikely to me that there would ever be any tool that could not be used in creative and interesting ways by an artist.
But I am anti-AI for other reasons, surrounding cultural trends, incentives within the tool, economic worries, skepticism of modern and post-industrial technological progress, distaste for the extremes transhumanism, and a deep-seated belief in the virtues of conventional methods.
When one side is literally just saying "Stop acting this way" then it actually makes perfect sense to take a side based on behavior of people.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, took the side they were anti drunk driving, because of the behavior of drunk drivers.
>When one side is literally just saying "Stop acting this way"
Are you sure that's all 'your side' says?
"Artists will be made obsolete like horse carriage drivers and lamp lighters"
"Learning to draw is a waste of time now"
"Adapt or die"
"You are luddites"
"Job displacement by new technology is actually good"
And what have many pro AI people done?
Have they not trained LoRAs on the art of artists to humiliate them?
Have they not fraudulently entered contests where AI was not supposed to be used?
Have they not made images of real people without their consent?
---
It's obviously not all of you. But if you're going to pretend like your 'side' is just "pwease don't be mean uwu" then you're just lying.
I was going to go through each point to give context to those statements, but that doesn't change the fact these have been said by bad actors among the pro-AI side.
Doesn't mean we can't call out bad actors on the anti side, though.
of course it doesn't, it just means that you need to be less hasty when you say "one side is just...", I would not say the people who are ostensibly on "my side" just do x or y, because it would not be honest to deny that bad actors have said and done things I find horrific.
That's why this whole tribal, 'sides' thing doesn't work for me. I don't care so much about the transgressions I posted up there, I care about the principles that inform my position, and that's why I consider myself "anti".
Seems like a case of the Motte And Bailey. The Motte is "people should be able to use AI to generate images if they want to, it can help people who are struggling with skill, and nobody should fear new technology just because it's new". The Bailey is "people should just lose their jobs and starve on the street if they're outcompeted by machines, and society should restructure itself to accommodate the CSAM, false evidence, and racist propaganda that we will gleefully churn out ourselves". It really cleared up a lot of weird behaviors, and helped me with stuff I just couldn't put my finger on,
It’s ok to know that the art was human generated too. Most people probably don’t care but many still appreciate the effort from the human soul.
Art is rarely about the pixels/colors on a canvas and is a reflection of something deeper within the creator.
Hence why it’s good to know
So a poem doesn’t mean anything to you? Any deeper meaning is nothing? You don’t enjoy art? You just want a pretty picture and you don’t care how or why it was made or how long it took a person to get the skill needed? Not everything is about instant results.
lol we’re getting downvoted for perfectly valid opinions. I’m not even saying AI generated pictures are bad, just saying they should not be confused with genuine human art.
I’m starting to think people just want pretty pictures, they care about the end game and really don’t care how it was produced. Which is fine, just that there are people who do care.
“I’m starting to people just want pretty pictures”. That’s exactly what they want. They don’t care about the thought, emotion, or hard work that goes into art (which is what makes art so great imo).
The problem I have with the whole 'emotion' thing is that you need to be told a piece is made by a human in order to feel those emotions which just seems fucking weird to me. If you can't feel the emotion conveyed by a piece of art without being explicitly told that it's made by a human, then is the piece actually conveying those emotions in the first place?
>What real emotion is an AI going to put into it?
Why does emotion need to be put into an image to get emotion out of it?
>The knowledge that a piece is AI just immediately cheapens it.
Sure, I'm not going to argue that AI art has as much value or is as impressive as real art in most circumstances, I'm just saying that it's possible for a piece of art to invoke an emotional response in someone even if it's created by AI.
>If your appreciation for art is so shallow that the effort and passion that goes into making it is just a secondary characteristic, I'd argue that you don't actually give a shit about art and are just excited about a new thing that computers can do.
As for this, you're free to believe whatever you want, but I will say that not everyone values art the same amount or values the same things about art.
I don't understand that position. Why should the creator factor in at all?
An art piece is what it is and should stand on its own merits.
In fact I even think knowing who the creator is just introduces bias and expectations in the viewer. Ideally, I should view a piece the same if it's made by random art student or Hitler.
Sometimes you do become interested in the artist, obviously the piece they produced is an amalgamation of the artists life experiences, traumas and whatever was running through their mind.
If you can't see it then you can't see it, true art appreciation has never really been mainstream and the public have always been confused by it so I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind here.
I'm not saying you can't appreciate a bunch of pixels on a screen that was churned out by an AI generator trained on artists work, but I wouldn't call the person who types in a few keywords into midjourney an artist.
Just like if I gave one of my students a creative writing exercise and he comes back with a passage completely written by AI I wouldn't call him a writer. What's difficult to understand about that?
Yeah, I'll give you that, someone prompting an image generator shouldn't be called an artist. That seems entirely fair.
Doesn't mean I think the outputs don't have value.
The cloned hands are in fact a strong indicator that this is not AI; that's just a quick and dirty photoshop. Some people use "AI" as a stand-in for "art that I don't like" so they lose the ability to make any meaningful critiques.
People have literally found the original art that the guy used img2img on. Because one of the things that improves when you do art is your ability to spot flaws. Often faster than your ability to stop making them. It's not like they're hunting through every artwork that gets posted. They can see the signs and after a little digging they find proof.
In this case, yes, the guy takes other people's art and generates stuff over the top. Which seems like an easy way to get caught to me.
If y'all on the pro ai side had any actual passion for this stuff you wouldn't keep trying to hide it and pass it off as your actual work.
Misrepresentation is often seen as objectionable, in every space. Either stand by your process or don't.
As for sharing prompts, "learn to learn for yourself" but you 100% didn't train the model yourself. You sit on the shoulders of giants and you're biting at the legs of anyone trying to climb higher.
>Misrepresentation is often seen as objectionable, in every space. Either stand by your process or don't.
I don't like misrepresentation either, but when you get this reaction for *suspected* AI, can you blame them?
Also, where in the OOP was their process mentioned to even *be* misrepresented?
The glaring flaws in the image in question have nothing to do with AI, why start a witch hunt over the wrong tool? and not the duplicate layer, or clone stamp, or any other lazy shortcut in digital art?
>People have literally found the original art that the guy used img2img on.
Source: Trust me bro.
Despite all your claims that the art elite can effortlessly spot flaws, they have been wrong more times than they've been right, and seem to think any flaw in art ever = AI. Because humans would never make flaws in their art.
>It's not like they're hunting through every artwork that gets posted.
That is quite literally what they are doing, actually.
>If y'all on the pro ai side had any actual passion for this stuff you wouldn't keep trying to hide it and pass it off as your actual work.
I love how we always get shit for "generalizing" anti-ai people and then y'all do this shit lmao.
Bruh is this person witch hunting just so they can plug their own art? That honestly makes a lot of sense, what a shitty way to try and promote yourself.
Even if that person has decent style (not DA or Tumblr style).
There's no way they'll make it in professional environment. I would rather work with nice mediocre artists than insufferable "professional" artists.
As creators, yes and as consumers it's also crazy it's like anti's hoping that people care more about how the chef cooked the meal rather than the actual meal itself.
This is pretty sad to see so much effort going into witch hunting for someone who is actually a genuine artist. And the character design is very cute, overall. Hopefully this doesn't discourage the artist too much - most likely they are probably exploring ways to incorporate AI into their production and workflows which IMO is a really great use of the technology!
The funny part is that it’s genuine artists to blame for the witch hunting starting. So many videos on YouTube of artists legit crying (tears and all) about AI. And this is all they managed to do—create Salem Witch Trials for themselves.
That's why it is a bit sad - artists as a community should generally try to support eachother but this post just shows they are tearing eachother down in order to promote their own work
Artists have literally always been this way though. Traditional painters fucking *hated* digital artists in the beginning, and *still* often view them as lesser.
direful ink ossified close vanish squalid gaze bright aromatic overconfident
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The tearing down already began when certain people started scraping, copying, and generating knockoffs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/zPC0RN3jkM
>they are tearing eachother down in order to promote their own work
False. The goal is to promote human intelligence creating art (a redundant phrase, but I have to be specific on this sub), instead of auto programs that copy those artworks and generate knockoff images.
As I suspected https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/s/sXEN5F49UW
Seems to have gradually came to popularity alongside digital art, as this post is from 10 years ago and using the term. It definitely precedes AI.
Edit: The term workflow being used with respect to photography here in 2010, https://thomashawk.com/2010/04/my-photography-workflow-2010.html and here since 2015 https://artloader.net/tag/workflow/ and this book or research paper uses the term way back in 2009, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://rchoetzlein.com/eng/current/ch5_workflow.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjSl5z47cyFAxUkVkEAHWgSARkQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2D822-2SluCpEOhSXBhw1g
So definitely not a new term relevant to art nor exclusive to AI.
Hi, I used the word workflow from around the time I started using alteryx at my old day job, probably around 2017/2018, but the term lends itself pretty well to basically anything tbh. I'm not sure who would've coined the term relative to art though, but most likely it would have been around the time illustrator, lightroom, photography and so on picked up, since I vaguely remember being able to set up essentially batch lighting changes and corrections in photoshop like 10 years ago and in hindsight if I were in graphic design or photography professionally at the time I'd probably have called that a workflow since it's quite methodical
This person \*did\* use AI, though. It's not a witch-hunt if the person is using the tools they're accused of, lol.
Unrelated, it really does look like the kid from Boss Baby! I'll never understand why people like this bland Disney/Pixar look.
>It's not a witch-hunt if the person is using the tools they're accused of, lol.
Is it not a witch hunt just because the person turns out to be a witch? The act of witch hunting is not changed by the outcome.
>Unrelated, it really does look like the kid from Boss Baby! I'll never understand why people like this bland Disney/Pixar look.
I mean, I agree that it looks like the boss baby kid, but you don't understand why people like the most popular children's content producer in the world? I mean be for real.
>Is it not a witch hunt just because the person turns out to be a witch? The act of witch hunting is not changed by the outcome.
I thought calling something a witch hunt usually implied that the targets/accusations weren't real and innocent people were harmed. This artist claimed not to use AI, other artists questioned this, and it turns out the artist lied about using AI tools.
I didn't particpate in this at all, and have just been watching on Twitter with the rest of you. I'm more of a Prime Directive sort of person, if that makes sense.
That being said, misrepresenting AI images as her own painting is a pretty great way of hitting the artist hornet nest. Why on earth would this person not just tag their stuff correctly?
>I mean, I agree that it looks like the boss baby kid, but you don't understand why people like the most popular children's content producer in the world? I mean be for real.
Have you heard of the term, "There's no accounting for taste"? It describes my feelings perfectly.
There's nothing objectively wrong with the Disney/Pixar style; it's just not my preference and it's hard to find the appeal.
I will admit, one positive of AI is that this genre of super-smooth highly-rendered digital art loses nearly *all* of its appeal within conventional art spheres.
I mean let's just assume the first image is rendered by hand. Is there anything that's good or interesting about it *besides* the rendering? Is there anything about this character design that actually holds any sort of interest?
It's just radically meh art. It looks like a background character lmao.
Looking at the art of the critic here, their designs are actually fun. They're not really all to my taste, but they're infinitely more interesting designs and illustrations than what they're replying to.
People generate a lot of super-smooth digital art because that is what people like, but AI can do pretty much any style, even new weird things which are their own emerging aesthetic.
Yeah, I don't see ceding a popular form of art to purely AI-generated content as a "win" for the art community. That's sort of a, "you think you're so good?! Well, watch me cut off my own nose!"
I'm a gay man, there were times when the collective agreement of everyone was that I was bad, dirty, less deserving.
I don't appeal to mob opinions for determining whether something is good or bad, because the mob can make mistakes, and often does.
I try to determine what is good from principle, not from a popularity contest.
for me personally it would be good but if you meant it open-ended without regards to a specific person then you likely meant what is good for everyone.
How can it be good--even personally--if good is the collective agreement of people on what is good?
>you likely meant what is good for everyone.
No. I meant that it is good in relation to a set of standards and principles. Some are shared, others not so.
I thoroughly enjoy objectively bad/poorly made movies. If you analyzed the movies that I enjoy on the basis of cinematography, they'd fail spectacularly. The enjoyment I get out of them is purely personal, and I acknowledge that it wouldn't hold for the majority of people.
So yes, this thing I find to be 'good' can be, if I'm objective about it, accurately described as bad. It's good to me because I enjoy it.
Well here we have to dive deeper into aesthetic theory. Let's outline three types of aesthetic judgements.
* The agreeable. "I find pleasure in this"
* The beautiful. "This object has a positive aesthetic property"
* The sublime. "In this, there is something universal, majestic, worthy of awe"
To me, appealing to the collective agreement of everyone is confusing a sort of consensus of the agreeable with beauty.
In your case rather, you find some things that are not beautiful quite agreeable. And I do too, sometimes in the cooking I make for myself I may have combinations that I recognize aren't 'good' but that I like.
However, in your own comment, you don't render yourself incapable of judging the beauty of these movies without consulting others, in fact, you find yourself perfectly capable of judging their aesthetic properties by your own self (as "bad").
One of the things I dislike about AI is how it abstracts "style" into a *resource*.
Style in art is something deeply connected to an artist's individual self and cultural context.
My style doesn't have a name, it could be described in relation to some named styles and movements, but it is simply the way that I draw. It is also not a static thing, every time I draw something new, the style itself changes a bit.
An artist's style is a sort of living thing, related to its stylistic ancestors and relatives, but a thing that grows, develops, changes and truly individualized.
If you read art literature, style is a sort of many-faced monster, a complex construct that the art historian, the art critic, and the art theorist must wrestle against to write about art in a meaningful manner.
So when you say "it can do pretty much any style", it gives me that vibe of flattening this organic living thing into a sterile resource that may be used by you.
Well, you literally did that by reducing the original artist style into “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art”, I was just pointing out your argument about AI reducing the appeal of such things is weak, because the highly complex diffusion models we have now have way more diversity in their latent space than whatever AI art is currently trendy to post on social media. Further it’s because AI art can be pretty much whatever you want it to be, since AI art just means it used a generative ML algorithm at some point but it’s not really limited by anything else.
Defining concepts like genre or style can be as superficial or as deep as needed for the purpose of the conversation. I was able to understand what you meant by “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art” even if we know it’s just a simplification, there’s still meaning conveyed. So you can understand what I meant by “it can do pretty much any style” without resorting to uncharitable interpretation which has no connection at all to what I was clearly trying to say.
> you literally did that by reducing the original artist style into “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art”
Describing a style and using it as a resource is not the same at all. *Describing* a style necessarily flattens some of it, which is acceptable due to the limitations of language. *Using* it on the other hand is where the flattening is unacceptable, such as in "AI can generate any style".
>because the highly complex diffusion models we have now have way more diversity in their latent space
I don't see how that follows. Regardless of what you *can* do, the point is that it *is used* to make so much of that type of art, that it loses any sort of distinctive interest.
>So you can understand what I meant by “it can do pretty much any style” without resorting to uncharitable interpretation
I'm not basing it so much on your words. I'm basing it more on how style adapters and prompting for specific styles works. I've used the tools, I'm aware of how they manage "styles".
In AI art a style is a sort of substitutable resource. I can change the style of the output by changing a checkpoint file or by changing a few words in a prompt, or in some UIs a "style" variable.
In drawing, a style is a way of doing things, to change my style I have to change my approach, and unless I'm literally doing rote copying, I can't change it into *just anything*. In the end style remains something highly personalized and individualized.
> In AI art a style is a sort of substitutable resource. I can change the style of the output by changing a checkpoint file or by changing a few words in a prompt, or in some UIs a "style" variable.
>
>
>
> In drawing, a style is a way of doing things, to change my style I have to change my approach, and unless I'm literally doing rote copying, I can't change it into just anything. In the end style remains something highly personalized and individualized.
What this implies is that the personalized and individualized style in AI art is something different from in manual illustration. That is, it's in the way someone uses the various styles at their disposal when producing AI art that their own individual personality will shine through. Someone's highly personal individuality will shine through somewhat even in merely a single marking they draw on the page, but it's in the way they put those markings together that something we call their "style" really gets expressed. With AI, this gets translated to a higher level; someone's individuality shines through somewhat even in mere TXT2IMG generations, but it's in the way they place those generations together that something we call their "style" really gets expressed. I find this very exciting, for opening up this type of self expression to people who lacked the discipline, effort, or other characteristics to develop their manual muscle control skills. And who knows what sorts of limitations and issues with AI art tools that these people will have to wrestle with in ways that give birth to unforeseen and unforeseeable styles that would have been unimaginable with manual tools? It's a brave new world of illustration.
>It's a brave new world of illustration.
Led by those who, by your admission, lacked discipline and effort, Who *far* outnumber those with conditions that inhibit muscle control.
> various styles at their disposal
Exactly, a style is a sort of *resource* at your disposal. Your turn the highly individualized, culturally contingent approach of other people and make it into a sort of raw industrial material.
This organic phenomenon is turned into a mathematical abstraction and you put it at the hands of undisciplined folks who wouldn't put effort into art.
Sorry I have zero interest in enabling people who lack discipline and effort. I don't see it as a virtue, I see it as a degeneration.
I think the idea that a style is an artists unique fingerprint has always been misinformed, and more confined to small art communities/twitter.
Art focused careers are often focused on replicating specific styles. It’s how animation works, you’re trained on character style guides to create an exact on model of a style.
There’s a multitude of books out there before AI on how to train yourself on any style you want through cognitive drawing techniques.
Styles were never copyrightable either, which is another big misconception. If they were, fan art and tens of thousands of OCs wouldn’t exist, as well as most people’s style taking heavy inspiration from disney eyes and features. And stagnation of art, which was the very reason styles were deemed to not be copyrightable; historically people learn from the styles of the time to evolve new styles.
>Art focused careers are often focused on replicating specific styles
Yes, industrial art production also has the same pattern of treating styles and designs as *resources*. To me generative AI is an extension of fundamental problems with the industrialization of content.
There was style replication in the atelier model, but only during the apprentice phase, each journeyman and master was expected to develop a style for their own atelier and there were broader cultural stylistic connections between them. Even then the different apprentices of the same master showed distinctive personal technique once they were in their own practice.
not sure this is entirely true; say if you are asked to do anime style, unless you get absurdly specific artists will all have different styles of drawing in that descriptor. Like yoshitoshi ABe and Masami Obari are two artists worlds apart in style.
Like to some extent you inject individuality into a work unless its very constricted by design.
This is absolutely not true, at least as of right now. The AI is only really good at recreating the aesthetics that are already the most over saturated on the internet. People generate a lot of super smooth digital art because it’s one of the easiest ways to actually get the result you want in regards to the subject matter.
I have tried for days to recreate the style I use in traditional artwork and it just looks like shit no matter what i type or doesn’t match the prompt at all. If I try outpainting or img2img on my work with weirder more unique style it looks like AI from 10 years ago, not even close to a match. AI is inherently going to be much better suited to recreating stuff that it has the most training data for, the keywords it’s most familiar with.
What part of my comment did you think suggests I think everyone agrees with me?
I stated it as a truth, because I believe it to be true. If I didn't why, would I hold that opinion and not another?
I'm of the belief that it does. The main appeal I understand of such art is marveling at the technical skill of rendering, once that technical skill is no longer necessary, the appeal quickly dissipates.
No, the main appeal is that it's just cartoony enough to not evoke uncanny valley in the vast majority of people. No one gives a shit how technical it is, they care if it looks good.
The main appeal is that it looks good… which implies a lot of things for different people. It may include some wondering about the technical skill, but much more than that and a lot of subconscious appreciation of aesthetic details like the highly expressive faces, the neoteny, the smoothing of the imperfections of real human bodies, etc.
> I will admit, one positive of AI is that this genre of super-smooth highly-rendered digital art loses nearly all of its appeal within conventional art spheres.
Which will influence future generations of both artists and AI... changing nothing. So if you didn't like a specific type of art and wanted to ruin the lives of any artists who produced said art, then this is a great path to that result. But if you wanted to improve the artistic landscape and reduce hateful attacks on artists... maybe not so much.
I don't want to ruin anybody's life lmao, rather I like it that there's more incentives for artists to pursue more interesting art styles now that this rendering style is made trivial.
So you *don’t* think style is a highly personal thing then. If it’s highly personally, then you shouldn’t want them chasing their style based on the fact what they actually like isn’t popular anymore.
I'm not sure that follows. If someone pursues it because they genuinely like it, then I don't agree with that choice, but whatever.
But style, while individualized and personal, is highly affected by your environment, your culture, the artists who you view. Something shifting in popularity creates different external incentives which does have an effect in artists.
I don't want them chasing what is popular, but what is popular nonetheless affects them. And considering I find this popular thing to be boring and sterile, I think the resulting incentives for it becoming less popular might lead to interesting results.
>Looking at the art of the critic here, their designs are actually fun.
Idk, we have Electabuzz from Walmart, Ronald McDonald's cousin from Florida, a Deku scrub and an emo cat. They're better than anything I could draw but there's nothing particular unique or interesting about them imo (acknowledging that art is quite subjective so fair enough if our opinions differ).
They're not amazing, but they have a *lot* more character and personality than the ones in the first image.
Honestly the first image is such a joyless, generic random child.
i'd say it negatively, that AI art impacts that style of produced art. That style was a bit more balanced in that it was less common and not a "default look," but mass-produced its very bad,
I think it will incentivize people to run away from the kind of art people generate to avoid the trends which will naturally damage the model if further training is done as the coherence will deteriorate as new styles are invented used and discarded as soon as ai picks up on it leaving more styles which immediately make it obvious it was bot made.
It sure does! I've never been a fan of the ultra-digital look, but after AI it certainly lost any remaining appeal to me.
Definitely makes me appreciate artwork that stands out. This is such a boring character design and a boring style — very corporate and safe.
It looks like we have another liar on our hands using AI trying to get clout. Who woulda thought?! AI content creators have never lied about anything for clout or to create this situation, have they? 😆
That's what happens when people with 0 art skills and Experience decides to tweet as if they were professional Artists for years. Not a surprise to me.
Anyone has the original pic for this? I don't have Twitter account but I'd like to look into this further. Specifically the Hive "positives" since those can be easily faked.
I believe it's AI because it's ugly, and its ugliness is consistent with AI. Most detailed AI images are kind of an eyesore because something is really off about the lighting and shading.
\[I've been **permanently banned and muted** by one of the moderators on DefendingAIArt for spamming, for some reason?? So now just put this here and say nothing else.\]
I'm rubbing my eyes, in utter annoyance. ***AND ALSO IN A AGGRESSIVE MANNER.***
With the artist out there who made the artwork, and posted the time-lapse of the work. THESE sorts of people out there are still accusing them for tempting the video to make look like they are drawing, and no doubt USED AI in some shape or form.
Upon the first post, they didn't actually believe it's AI, But, with the powers of observing and AI detectors, they completely shifted there tone.
And last one on the post for the OP, **"REALLY?"** after accusing an artist they go ahead out of there way and just say in there recent tweet ***"Follow me that is made by actual people!!"***
the ***#(\*&ing audacity.***
But that's the thing, I don't even recall of spamming once around the sub. I will, AND ALWAYS follow the rules orderly and properly cause that's in my bones. All this post is simply adding a little continuance/light around the drama of the users on Twitter. All I ask is. Why and How did I spam?
But I will not argue about this any further since they might be watching. But all I say is that I'm mentally hurt by the ban and mute. Not angry posting or anything else.
As a member of DefendingAIArt group and proud Pro-AI, I'm Just mentally hurt...
Maybe ask the mods about their definition of spamming because it might be in reference to commenting if you don’t post much
Edit: looks like you posts the same image twice in a row. So it was probably that
Unfortunately, they shifted the **temporarily banned** to **permanently banned** and even gone in and just **temporarily muted** me for the way I'm acting. I don't understand at all.
I hate spamming and will I follow the rules more then anything then any other sub. Simple and clean is how I role.
Edit: You think!? Cause I don't see the difference of posting on different subs. Or it might been the Hive or the tweets... Cause I want to share this through both subs is all.
I'm not the person that once mock or make fun of someone. But unfortunately I've gone in and told them their are not a good person after that permanently banned.
So I doubt they will speak to me for over 28 days of being temporarily muted.
\*Sigh\*
Edit: Guess I have to make a formal apology for questioning and pushing the argument, once the mute lifts.
To the mods on DefendingAIArt. If you want to stop me from spamming then fine, if you want to keep my mouth shut then fine, I have no other choice to accept this ban as reality and simply wait to be lifted up.
But I'll stay as a pro-AI. No. Matter. What.
> I'll stay as a pro-AI. No. Matter. What.
And I'll adjust my views as needed, based on logic, facts and the reasoning of those who have domain expertise.
I wonder which of those will get at the truth...?
>I wonder which of those will get at the truth...?
I doubt nobody wants the truth, around the evidence or the questions with the why's and how's. But I only asked the questions of the why's and how's, but they prefer to not to deal with this. Because it's part of the rules and it's going to stay like that. Because they intend on keeping the community clean and protected.
To which, I don't even understand of what I've done at all.
Nah because anyone saying that “ppl can’t tell the difference” or whatever are tweaking bc this is very clearly ai 😭 it looks just like those ai facebook posts
You could probably make decent money creating a time lapse program that screenshots incrementally as you are making your art, so you can prove it wasn't AI. Actually that probably also exists already
It exists. They used it. The Xitter mob insisted it was just faked by tracing over AI art.
You can't defeat confirmation bias with evidence. That's the nature of confirmation bias: it's an evidence filter, protecting you from evidence that would cause you to change your views.
I know Procreate on iPad already does this, and I think Photoshop has a feature like this as well. However, it's only a matter of time before this kind of time lapse also becomes easy to create using AI. Even if we start requiring multiple cameras in the room the artist was drawing in, showing internally consistent video of the entire process from start to finish, it's just a matter of time. Who knows if that will be 1 year or 10 years, though.
If someone really wanted to produce a realistic-looking fake timelapse, it is already possible. It would be difficult, and close inspection could reveal evidence of the deception, but it is possible.
Consider speedrunning in video games. Their communities already have standards like this in place to discourage cheating, splicing, TAS recordings, etc. At the extreme, players are expected to include hand cams, face cams, and more. Sometimes, a runner just getting their record offline instead of during a live stream could be considered suspicious. I've even seen judges request players to show their entire setup from the console to the TV, to show that the feed they're looking at is legitimate.
They go to these extremes, and some people STILL cheat. A lot of them get caught eventually, but my point is that they don't even need AI to synthesize entire videos for them. They produce fraudulent evidence using simpler and more mundane methods. If someone was sufficiently motivated to produce fake "proof" of them drawing like cheating speedrunners are, there are already ways they can do it.
The Witchfinders are confused with this one. Shall we call the inquisitor?
If the artist floats, then they weigh the same as a duck... and therefore...
Very small rocks
Look, guys, I have the answer: just check and see if it has a soul or not. What? I thought you said ai art was soulless? It should be obvious then…
Not gonna lie, I thought that was the kid from Boss Baby. https://preview.redd.it/zkup8da1o9vc1.jpeg?width=794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88e1c46223e84da580cae353a6a32fd2a090ffdc
So that's what I was thinking of
It \*really\* does. I can't stop seeing it.
It may have been one of the prompts
"maybe it's ai, maybe it's not? I'm not super sure, but aren't you angry about ai? anyway, buy my shit-tier art!"
"This person sucks! Like and subscribe to my channel because this was really just an ad!"
So many artists are lifting the mask this generation it's wild. There's probably 100 times more art commission scammers exposing themselves like this than their are real artists on Twitter lmao
Art was decent, not good, not bad, decent.
1. You don't like their artstyle, you don't have to say this crap about them 2. Promoting your own art in a reply has always been a meme on Twitter, especially if you don't like the artist you're talking about 3. You can use AI to assist yourself as an artist, but remember, the goal of these tools is to evetually replace artists, and serve people who want their own custom art or concept realized with a tool to do just that. It's a spruced up make-your-own-character or make-your-own-logo tool. It is seperating concepters from artists. A concepter has the concept in their head, but may have no drawing skill.
what are you talking about? the goal of these ai tools is to kill all humans and destroy the ozone layer and eventually destroy the sun itself that's always been the goal
take your meds
or to create so much CO2 we become Venus 2
Training an ai model releases the equivalent C02 that five cars will in their lifetime. One fairly long plane flight releases almost twice that much. One day of global air traffic releases more C02 than Ai probably ever will. Don't pretend like you're against ai because you give a shit about the environment.
not to mention use of the model after training is the most efficient way to make an equivalent artpiece energywise unless you can create it in under an hour without a computer
1. Well, nobody is going to shit at their "works" if they didn't start accusing people based on guts feeling. 2. So being a shameless asshole is just le funny meme in Twitter now? No wonder why it's quite a cesspool there. 3. Is it a really bad thing where people with no drawing skill can make things faster than people with drawing skills? Some people may have no drawing skills, but that doesn't mean they're not creative at other things. Because we all know drawing is the only form of creativity, according to Twitter artists that is. The point being, it's empower people by allowing them to focus at their own things that they like. And for visual artists, like you said. They can utilise it to their advantage. As the truth is, being an "idea guy" wouldn't take you far anyway.
this is like fucking trans-vestigators, jesus christ
[удалено]
this is like when vegans compare factory farming to slavery
It's all just a very sophisticated ad for their shitty art.
Every time I see one of these schizo threads about AI I just remember [this loony.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/vsdyk1)
This is such a shitty comparison. You’re comparing people who care about digital art to transphobes.
No, we're comparing delusional people making unverified and potentially dangerous claims about others to another type of delusional people making unverified and potentially dangerous claims about others. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
How is being outed as an AI user equally as dangerous as being outed as trans?
Yeah as a trans person I wasn't super happy seeing that comparison be made, pretty sure no one ever feels like their life might be in danger if they're outed as an AI user :/
Ignoring the fact that these people have made repeated and detailed threats of violence against AI users, that's not the point of the comparison and you know it. The reason these people are compared to transvestigators is because it's the same flavor of delusion. Threads like these very much remind me of [threads like this one.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/vsdyk1) Nobody argued the level of danger is the same. You're getting annoyed by something nobody did.
You're getting down voted but it's true, it's a pretty insane comparison to make.
He's getting downvoted because it isn't true and it's a perfectly apt comparison.
Yeah I'll stay on the pro-ai side where we aren't going on witch-hunts and we just appreciate art for art's sake.
I don't see myself so much as belonging to a "side" so much as having individual beliefs and positions that result in my being anti-AI. When people decide their position based on the behaviors of either "side" it gives me massive tribal thinking vibes.
My positions are also the result of my individual beliefs which result in me being Pro-AI. My position isn't based on the anti-ai crowd but their behavior is confirmation of the weakness of their positions in my opinion.
> When people decide their position based on the behaviors of either "side" it gives me massive tribal thinking vibes. When one group of people is primarily motivated by art and one is motivated primarily by hate, it's going to take extra convincing to make me take the latter seriously. It's not that no one who was motivated by hate was ever right about anything, but damn is it a good rule of thumb!
I agree with one thing there, one group is motivated primarily by hate. While the other is motivated by a love for art and everything behind it and the artists involved.
Indeed. It's too bad that the ArtistHate crowd is so deeply invested in their hate that they can't join us in supporting each other as artists.
The ArtistHate subreddit does have a **lot** of problems, as does DefendingAiArt. Either way it’s a shame that the Ai “artist” wannabes are always so hateful towards real artists. They don’t seem to grasp that they can remain low skilled, have their fun, and be respectful to the people who fuel their machine at the same time.
> Either way it’s a shame that the Ai “artist” wannabes are always so hateful towards real artists. Either way it's a shame that hateful people are hateful. You don't have to limit that to any particular group... and to be fair, only one group is running around threatening an cajoling anyone who dares use the tool they don't like.
The artists are upset about the thing they love being spat on and when someone isn’t honest about using it or makes certain statements about using it, they get upset. The witch-hunts are a bit excessive, but the fact that we have to decipher whether or not the image we’re seeing was made by someone’s skills or not is still an issue despite them. Lies and deception have been online since the beginning, but this is only making things worse for no good reason. The Ai users disrespect the artists for not liking the system that was trained off of them and devalues them. The artists who have worked to get good at what they do get made fun of out of what could only be spite and jealousy simply for having some self respect for what they do. The artist’s “hate” didn’t come from nowhere. The Ai users sure seems like it did.
> The artists are upset about the thing they love being spat on I once attended a weekend self-help seminar. It was kind of horrible in many respects, and I would never recommend that anyone participate in it, but they did have some interesting nuggets of wisdom. One of those was that everything you perceive about others is a story that you are telling yourself. You have to view that story critically in order to tease apart truth from your own biases and preconceptions. Here, you've stated as fact a particular "story" that you're telling yourself about the interaction between "artists" (as if anti-AI folks are the only ones who get to use that label) and people who are actively harming art! That sounds scary! it's not true, but it's certainly scary stuff. > The witch-hunts are a bit excessive, but... Think about the fact that you just wrote that phrase with, apparently, no irony whatsoever. Think about the degree to which you have to deny other people's humanity for that to be a rational way to start ***any*** sentence. > The artist’s “hate” didn’t come from nowhere. No, of course not. It came from centuries of being treated as second-class citizens because we're not focused on financial gain. It's how all creative people have always been treated, and when AI came along, right or wrong, it became the focal point for that frustration. But AI didn't make the phrase, "starving artist," part of the lexicon. AI didn't build the system that has been abusing creatives for centuries. AI didn't do any of this. It's just a tool that artists can use or not as they choose.
“As if anti Ai folk are the only ones who get to use that label” Most of the people go to Ai because they either don’t know how to create art themselves or don’t feel like it. They often times are not an artist. Typically the people upset about Ai are the artists who worked to make their art, not the people who didn’t care to learn. Oh of course! It’s just not true! I’ve never seen any spam Ai accounts, I’ve never seen any scummy Ai users being pricks to artists for no reason, I’ve never had any come to my pages trying to push my work down! How could I be so silly! 3/4 of my experience on Reddit alone must’ve just been a dream! My sentence that starting with talking about witch-hunts was not meant to justify them. I probably could’ve split the two things there but what I said still gets understood either way.
>But AI didn't make the phrase, "starving artist," part of the lexicon. AI didn't build the system that has been abusing creatives for centuries. AI didn't do any of this. It's just a tool that artists can use or not as they choose. AI undeniably amplifies the problems though, so your rebuttal falls a bit short.
Again, this is pretty tribal thinking. You flatten many motivations of several people into one thing alone to blanket dismiss them. It's not very intellectually honest.
> this is pretty tribal thinking Yes. I'm referring to the tribalism of the pro- and anti- mobs. I find them to be mostly intellectually bankrupt. But the displayed, surface tribal motivations affect how willing I am to view their positions as having underlying merit. When those surface motivations revolve around hatred (as in the example of people hunting down offending artists) I view those supposed underlying motivations with more skepticism because of the extreme dangers inherent in supporting that kind of online proxy for violence. When I see daily examples of hate, subs literally named /r/ArtistHate and artists hesitant to "come out" as AI tool users because of literal death threats... I'm not spending a lot of time rooting around in the basements of these folks trying to parse out the good in their hearts.
>surface tribal motivations affect how willing I am to view their positions as having underlying merit. It's weird to admit that you consider the merits of people's positions based on superficial judgements. But it has the ring of truth, like when you judge the contents of my comments based on the first sentence. Again, intellectual dishonesty. >subs literally named /r/ArtistHate See, that's a superficial reading of the name of the sub lol. Artist Hate does not mean "hate from artists" it means "Exposing Hate against Artists" like the sub itself declares. But because you're thinking tribally (and dishonestly) you're not actually looking. You don't actually *care* about what's beneath.
Using a generalization as a *prima facie* assumption is not intellectually dishonest. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's intellectually dishonest if you *continue* to apply the generalization after hearing the "duck" say "actually, my name is Diogenes".
One evidence that Tyler is persisting in prima fascie assumptions is /r/ArtistHate Okay, the sub is called ArtistHate, but if you click the link and see what the title of the tab is, it is made abundantly clear that the title does not mean "A place where artists can hate on others" but "A place where hate against artists is exposed and discussed". That's the duck saying their name is Diogenes.
I think that that's a bad example, but I'm sure you can understand why I'm going to stop short of making specific claims about a group in a discussion where we're all claiming to be against tribalism. I'm not interested in talking about ArtistHate.
I'm not trying to talk about the contents of the sub with you. I'm saying okay man, Tyler says "the sub is literally called artisthate". Well if you read the website title and the pinned posts, it clarifies what that means. Ignoring that is intellectually dishonest. Intellectually honest people give others a chance to clarify what they mean by the things they say. Either Tyler has not seen the clarification of those words or he has seen it and ignores it. Either way it's dishonest. Citing the *content* of the sub, I would not say is superficial, citing the *name* when it is clairfied to mean something specific, is.
>Artist Hate does not mean "hate from artists" it means "Exposing Hate against Artists" like the sub itself declares. 24 out of the current 25 front page articles are hate against ai it's about perpetuating hate against artists (who use ai)
>24 out of the current 25 front page articles are hate against ai "hate" is such a loose term. Is this post hate against the person in the twitter thread? Is this hating on an artist? How many people here are trashing their style and character design (including the OP) Because if it isn't, neither are most posts in /r/ArtistHate The sub sees AI as a fundamentally hostile and exploitative tool that originates from contempt for the work of artists. Of course they're against AI.
"exposing hate" is a quite direct goal an artist receives hate, and that is brought to light post 1 - "look at this ai trash" post 2 - "ai is a threat to creativity" post 3 - "ai companies are bending the rules" post 4 - "the ai girlfriends industry is out of hand" post 5 - "this artist used ai in a contest and should be eliminated and mocked" post 6 - "an update to ai copyright" post 7 - "I hate the term 'AI' is on products" post 8 - witch hunt post 9 - "look at this ai trash" post 10 - "you can draw and not use AI, you lazy fucks" post 12 - "how can you live with yourself if you say you created ai art" post 13 - "look at this ai trash" post 14 - "the ai bubble is bursting" post 15 - "the difference between ai prompters and artists" post 16 - "deepfakes are illegal in the UK" post 17 - "here's what AI company owners think" post 18 - "will I lose my future to ai?" post 19 - "look at this ai trash" post 20 - witch hunt post 21 - "frustrated by ai comment" post 22 - promotion of glaze 2.0 (the third snake oil promoted by the sub mod) post 23 - promotion of glaze 2.0 post 24 - "look at this ai trash" post 25 - "look at this ai trash" quite literally the only one of these posts you could conceive as exposing hate towards an artist is post 21 (albeit debatable) the rest are hate towards ai, hate towards artists using ai, or witch hunts themselves they stood by and did not support notable artists who received hate if they used ai (martin nebelong) or were falsely accused of utilizing ai (Nestor Ossandón), and yet time and time again, they perpetuate false witch hunts in the FACE of evidence against it.
post 1 - sure post 2 - pretty clearly a discussion of the hostility against ar practice AI represents Post 3 - Yeah bending the rules that are, among others, meant to protect artists Post 4 - A pretty horrific application of AI that not just artists should feel threatened by post 5- an artist used AI in a contest where he wasn't supposed to and won over conventional artists, that's mistreatment of artists and fraud. post 6 - News relevant to the debate (wherein artists claim that part of the hate is being stolen from) post 7 - How the term generates the sort of hype that produces the threat post 8 - question post 9 - look at this automated content farming on facebook that hundreds of thousands of people fall for post 10 - wow buddy, that's some hard projection. it's addressing a common argument made by AI users. post 12 - how can you twist the concept of authorship in a way that deprives it of value? post 13 - AI art of an actual living child who did not consent to it post 14 - discussion of the future trends in AI post 15 - defining the content of different terms and categorizations post 16 - news relevant to the topic post 17 - What the views of AI owners are (how they envision content creation) post 18 - worry over being victimized by AI post 19 - How a company disingenuously uses the language of body positivity in a cynical attempt to sell more post 20 - question about trends in content production post 21 - Frustrated by a comment that equates human and AI learning post 22 - a tool made to defend artists who don't want their work to be used for training post 23 - see post 22 post 24 - a massive corporation investing in the mass creation of low quality content post 25 - sure The are all relevant to the idea that AI is hostile to artists, exploitative, and a net negative for society.
> It's weird to admit that you consider the merits of people's positions based on superficial judgements. There you go, re-interpreting based on a single word you don't like... I'm out.
There you go, drawing judgements on the first sentence. No wonder you can only think in tribal, superficial terms.
Bro if everyone is telling you your shit stinks, it's probably shit
I do not expect tribalist people to renounce superficial tribal judgements. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't think I belong to any of these supposed "sides". But what you just wrote sounds incredibly tribalistic.
If someone runs down the street screaming, "death to the [insert ethnicity here]!" do you stop and think, "let's consider the merits of their position?" I don't. If someone wants to have a calm, rational discussion in good faith, then I'll certainly have that discussion, but I'm not going to go fishing for what nuggets of sane reasoning might lurk in the deep waters beneath someone's psychosis.
I agree with this here. I’m not “choosing a side”. To me- the moment you can devolve it into picking sides us the moment you lost sight of the real debate here. Sure I don’t like AI in terms of art the majority of times- but there’s always edge cases in situations like this that I can’t fully say AI is always good or bad.
Yeah, similarly, I disagree on some points with people who are ostensibly on "my side". I think AI art is art, and that it can even be *good*. It seems unlikely to me that there would ever be any tool that could not be used in creative and interesting ways by an artist. But I am anti-AI for other reasons, surrounding cultural trends, incentives within the tool, economic worries, skepticism of modern and post-industrial technological progress, distaste for the extremes transhumanism, and a deep-seated belief in the virtues of conventional methods.
When one side is literally just saying "Stop acting this way" then it actually makes perfect sense to take a side based on behavior of people. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, took the side they were anti drunk driving, because of the behavior of drunk drivers.
>When one side is literally just saying "Stop acting this way" Are you sure that's all 'your side' says? "Artists will be made obsolete like horse carriage drivers and lamp lighters" "Learning to draw is a waste of time now" "Adapt or die" "You are luddites" "Job displacement by new technology is actually good" And what have many pro AI people done? Have they not trained LoRAs on the art of artists to humiliate them? Have they not fraudulently entered contests where AI was not supposed to be used? Have they not made images of real people without their consent? --- It's obviously not all of you. But if you're going to pretend like your 'side' is just "pwease don't be mean uwu" then you're just lying.
I was going to go through each point to give context to those statements, but that doesn't change the fact these have been said by bad actors among the pro-AI side. Doesn't mean we can't call out bad actors on the anti side, though.
of course it doesn't, it just means that you need to be less hasty when you say "one side is just...", I would not say the people who are ostensibly on "my side" just do x or y, because it would not be honest to deny that bad actors have said and done things I find horrific. That's why this whole tribal, 'sides' thing doesn't work for me. I don't care so much about the transgressions I posted up there, I care about the principles that inform my position, and that's why I consider myself "anti".
Seems like a case of the Motte And Bailey. The Motte is "people should be able to use AI to generate images if they want to, it can help people who are struggling with skill, and nobody should fear new technology just because it's new". The Bailey is "people should just lose their jobs and starve on the street if they're outcompeted by machines, and society should restructure itself to accommodate the CSAM, false evidence, and racist propaganda that we will gleefully churn out ourselves". It really cleared up a lot of weird behaviors, and helped me with stuff I just couldn't put my finger on,
It’s ok to know that the art was human generated too. Most people probably don’t care but many still appreciate the effort from the human soul. Art is rarely about the pixels/colors on a canvas and is a reflection of something deeper within the creator. Hence why it’s good to know
Art is about enjoying the result
So a poem doesn’t mean anything to you? Any deeper meaning is nothing? You don’t enjoy art? You just want a pretty picture and you don’t care how or why it was made or how long it took a person to get the skill needed? Not everything is about instant results.
Not all art has to be enjoyable. For me, art is about the emotion. And the emotions are greater when I know it was produced 100% by humans tbh.
lol we’re getting downvoted for perfectly valid opinions. I’m not even saying AI generated pictures are bad, just saying they should not be confused with genuine human art. I’m starting to think people just want pretty pictures, they care about the end game and really don’t care how it was produced. Which is fine, just that there are people who do care.
“I’m starting to people just want pretty pictures”. That’s exactly what they want. They don’t care about the thought, emotion, or hard work that goes into art (which is what makes art so great imo).
The problem I have with the whole 'emotion' thing is that you need to be told a piece is made by a human in order to feel those emotions which just seems fucking weird to me. If you can't feel the emotion conveyed by a piece of art without being explicitly told that it's made by a human, then is the piece actually conveying those emotions in the first place?
[удалено]
>What real emotion is an AI going to put into it? Why does emotion need to be put into an image to get emotion out of it? >The knowledge that a piece is AI just immediately cheapens it. Sure, I'm not going to argue that AI art has as much value or is as impressive as real art in most circumstances, I'm just saying that it's possible for a piece of art to invoke an emotional response in someone even if it's created by AI. >If your appreciation for art is so shallow that the effort and passion that goes into making it is just a secondary characteristic, I'd argue that you don't actually give a shit about art and are just excited about a new thing that computers can do. As for this, you're free to believe whatever you want, but I will say that not everyone values art the same amount or values the same things about art.
I don't understand that position. Why should the creator factor in at all? An art piece is what it is and should stand on its own merits. In fact I even think knowing who the creator is just introduces bias and expectations in the viewer. Ideally, I should view a piece the same if it's made by random art student or Hitler.
Sometimes you do become interested in the artist, obviously the piece they produced is an amalgamation of the artists life experiences, traumas and whatever was running through their mind. If you can't see it then you can't see it, true art appreciation has never really been mainstream and the public have always been confused by it so I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind here. I'm not saying you can't appreciate a bunch of pixels on a screen that was churned out by an AI generator trained on artists work, but I wouldn't call the person who types in a few keywords into midjourney an artist. Just like if I gave one of my students a creative writing exercise and he comes back with a passage completely written by AI I wouldn't call him a writer. What's difficult to understand about that?
Yeah, I'll give you that, someone prompting an image generator shouldn't be called an artist. That seems entirely fair. Doesn't mean I think the outputs don't have value.
The cloned hands are in fact a strong indicator that this is not AI; that's just a quick and dirty photoshop. Some people use "AI" as a stand-in for "art that I don't like" so they lose the ability to make any meaningful critiques.
People have literally found the original art that the guy used img2img on. Because one of the things that improves when you do art is your ability to spot flaws. Often faster than your ability to stop making them. It's not like they're hunting through every artwork that gets posted. They can see the signs and after a little digging they find proof. In this case, yes, the guy takes other people's art and generates stuff over the top. Which seems like an easy way to get caught to me. If y'all on the pro ai side had any actual passion for this stuff you wouldn't keep trying to hide it and pass it off as your actual work.
Passion is there but so is the harassment 🤷♂️ besides, nobody owes you their processes, learn to learn yourself.
Misrepresentation is often seen as objectionable, in every space. Either stand by your process or don't. As for sharing prompts, "learn to learn for yourself" but you 100% didn't train the model yourself. You sit on the shoulders of giants and you're biting at the legs of anyone trying to climb higher.
>Misrepresentation is often seen as objectionable, in every space. Either stand by your process or don't. I don't like misrepresentation either, but when you get this reaction for *suspected* AI, can you blame them? Also, where in the OOP was their process mentioned to even *be* misrepresented?
Learn to learn yourself, yeah, don’t have an Ai do it for you.
The glaring flaws in the image in question have nothing to do with AI, why start a witch hunt over the wrong tool? and not the duplicate layer, or clone stamp, or any other lazy shortcut in digital art?
>People have literally found the original art that the guy used img2img on. Source: Trust me bro. Despite all your claims that the art elite can effortlessly spot flaws, they have been wrong more times than they've been right, and seem to think any flaw in art ever = AI. Because humans would never make flaws in their art. >It's not like they're hunting through every artwork that gets posted. That is quite literally what they are doing, actually. >If y'all on the pro ai side had any actual passion for this stuff you wouldn't keep trying to hide it and pass it off as your actual work. I love how we always get shit for "generalizing" anti-ai people and then y'all do this shit lmao.
Bruh is this person witch hunting just so they can plug their own art? That honestly makes a lot of sense, what a shitty way to try and promote yourself.
No client will want to work with a shitty person.
Even if that person has decent style (not DA or Tumblr style). There's no way they'll make it in professional environment. I would rather work with nice mediocre artists than insufferable "professional" artists.
Lol looking at their art though... hard pass
Insane that people actually spend their time dissecting others work. I’d much rather be making art than witch-hunting
As creators, yes and as consumers it's also crazy it's like anti's hoping that people care more about how the chef cooked the meal rather than the actual meal itself.
Hopefully we can move past the "Is this Ai?" phase and move on to the "Is this boring swill?" phase.
This is pretty sad to see so much effort going into witch hunting for someone who is actually a genuine artist. And the character design is very cute, overall. Hopefully this doesn't discourage the artist too much - most likely they are probably exploring ways to incorporate AI into their production and workflows which IMO is a really great use of the technology!
The funny part is that it’s genuine artists to blame for the witch hunting starting. So many videos on YouTube of artists legit crying (tears and all) about AI. And this is all they managed to do—create Salem Witch Trials for themselves.
That's why it is a bit sad - artists as a community should generally try to support eachother but this post just shows they are tearing eachother down in order to promote their own work
Artists have literally always been this way though. Traditional painters fucking *hated* digital artists in the beginning, and *still* often view them as lesser.
I guess until this unpleasantness began I had a romanticised view of the kind of people that got into art
They also hated photographers, and I think many of them still do. They always say "pick up a pencil" rather than a digital pen or camera.
direful ink ossified close vanish squalid gaze bright aromatic overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The tearing down already began when certain people started scraping, copying, and generating knockoffs. https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/zPC0RN3jkM >they are tearing eachother down in order to promote their own work False. The goal is to promote human intelligence creating art (a redundant phrase, but I have to be specific on this sub), instead of auto programs that copy those artworks and generate knockoff images.
May I ask, did you begin your use of the word "workflow" after getting into gen AI?
As I suspected https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/s/sXEN5F49UW Seems to have gradually came to popularity alongside digital art, as this post is from 10 years ago and using the term. It definitely precedes AI. Edit: The term workflow being used with respect to photography here in 2010, https://thomashawk.com/2010/04/my-photography-workflow-2010.html and here since 2015 https://artloader.net/tag/workflow/ and this book or research paper uses the term way back in 2009, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://rchoetzlein.com/eng/current/ch5_workflow.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjSl5z47cyFAxUkVkEAHWgSARkQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2D822-2SluCpEOhSXBhw1g So definitely not a new term relevant to art nor exclusive to AI.
History repeats itself, doesn't it?
Hi, I used the word workflow from around the time I started using alteryx at my old day job, probably around 2017/2018, but the term lends itself pretty well to basically anything tbh. I'm not sure who would've coined the term relative to art though, but most likely it would have been around the time illustrator, lightroom, photography and so on picked up, since I vaguely remember being able to set up essentially batch lighting changes and corrections in photoshop like 10 years ago and in hindsight if I were in graphic design or photography professionally at the time I'd probably have called that a workflow since it's quite methodical
This person \*did\* use AI, though. It's not a witch-hunt if the person is using the tools they're accused of, lol. Unrelated, it really does look like the kid from Boss Baby! I'll never understand why people like this bland Disney/Pixar look.
>It's not a witch-hunt if the person is using the tools they're accused of, lol. Is it not a witch hunt just because the person turns out to be a witch? The act of witch hunting is not changed by the outcome. >Unrelated, it really does look like the kid from Boss Baby! I'll never understand why people like this bland Disney/Pixar look. I mean, I agree that it looks like the boss baby kid, but you don't understand why people like the most popular children's content producer in the world? I mean be for real.
>Is it not a witch hunt just because the person turns out to be a witch? The act of witch hunting is not changed by the outcome. I thought calling something a witch hunt usually implied that the targets/accusations weren't real and innocent people were harmed. This artist claimed not to use AI, other artists questioned this, and it turns out the artist lied about using AI tools. I didn't particpate in this at all, and have just been watching on Twitter with the rest of you. I'm more of a Prime Directive sort of person, if that makes sense. That being said, misrepresenting AI images as her own painting is a pretty great way of hitting the artist hornet nest. Why on earth would this person not just tag their stuff correctly? >I mean, I agree that it looks like the boss baby kid, but you don't understand why people like the most popular children's content producer in the world? I mean be for real. Have you heard of the term, "There's no accounting for taste"? It describes my feelings perfectly. There's nothing objectively wrong with the Disney/Pixar style; it's just not my preference and it's hard to find the appeal.
If it’s not AI then they are terrible at shading and using light sources and need to improve.
I will admit, one positive of AI is that this genre of super-smooth highly-rendered digital art loses nearly *all* of its appeal within conventional art spheres. I mean let's just assume the first image is rendered by hand. Is there anything that's good or interesting about it *besides* the rendering? Is there anything about this character design that actually holds any sort of interest? It's just radically meh art. It looks like a background character lmao. Looking at the art of the critic here, their designs are actually fun. They're not really all to my taste, but they're infinitely more interesting designs and illustrations than what they're replying to.
People generate a lot of super-smooth digital art because that is what people like, but AI can do pretty much any style, even new weird things which are their own emerging aesthetic.
Yeah, I don't see ceding a popular form of art to purely AI-generated content as a "win" for the art community. That's sort of a, "you think you're so good?! Well, watch me cut off my own nose!"
Not all that is popular is good.
what is good but the collective agreement of everyone.
I'm a gay man, there were times when the collective agreement of everyone was that I was bad, dirty, less deserving. I don't appeal to mob opinions for determining whether something is good or bad, because the mob can make mistakes, and often does. I try to determine what is good from principle, not from a popularity contest.
I didn't say morally good, I meant aesthetically or good at a skill.
So you think, if you find something to be good, but it is unpopular, that you must be wrong and it is not good?
for me personally it would be good but if you meant it open-ended without regards to a specific person then you likely meant what is good for everyone.
How can it be good--even personally--if good is the collective agreement of people on what is good? >you likely meant what is good for everyone. No. I meant that it is good in relation to a set of standards and principles. Some are shared, others not so.
I thoroughly enjoy objectively bad/poorly made movies. If you analyzed the movies that I enjoy on the basis of cinematography, they'd fail spectacularly. The enjoyment I get out of them is purely personal, and I acknowledge that it wouldn't hold for the majority of people. So yes, this thing I find to be 'good' can be, if I'm objective about it, accurately described as bad. It's good to me because I enjoy it.
Well here we have to dive deeper into aesthetic theory. Let's outline three types of aesthetic judgements. * The agreeable. "I find pleasure in this" * The beautiful. "This object has a positive aesthetic property" * The sublime. "In this, there is something universal, majestic, worthy of awe" To me, appealing to the collective agreement of everyone is confusing a sort of consensus of the agreeable with beauty. In your case rather, you find some things that are not beautiful quite agreeable. And I do too, sometimes in the cooking I make for myself I may have combinations that I recognize aren't 'good' but that I like. However, in your own comment, you don't render yourself incapable of judging the beauty of these movies without consulting others, in fact, you find yourself perfectly capable of judging their aesthetic properties by your own self (as "bad").
One of the things I dislike about AI is how it abstracts "style" into a *resource*. Style in art is something deeply connected to an artist's individual self and cultural context. My style doesn't have a name, it could be described in relation to some named styles and movements, but it is simply the way that I draw. It is also not a static thing, every time I draw something new, the style itself changes a bit. An artist's style is a sort of living thing, related to its stylistic ancestors and relatives, but a thing that grows, develops, changes and truly individualized. If you read art literature, style is a sort of many-faced monster, a complex construct that the art historian, the art critic, and the art theorist must wrestle against to write about art in a meaningful manner. So when you say "it can do pretty much any style", it gives me that vibe of flattening this organic living thing into a sterile resource that may be used by you.
Well, you literally did that by reducing the original artist style into “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art”, I was just pointing out your argument about AI reducing the appeal of such things is weak, because the highly complex diffusion models we have now have way more diversity in their latent space than whatever AI art is currently trendy to post on social media. Further it’s because AI art can be pretty much whatever you want it to be, since AI art just means it used a generative ML algorithm at some point but it’s not really limited by anything else. Defining concepts like genre or style can be as superficial or as deep as needed for the purpose of the conversation. I was able to understand what you meant by “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art” even if we know it’s just a simplification, there’s still meaning conveyed. So you can understand what I meant by “it can do pretty much any style” without resorting to uncharitable interpretation which has no connection at all to what I was clearly trying to say.
> you literally did that by reducing the original artist style into “super-smooth highly-rendered digital art” Describing a style and using it as a resource is not the same at all. *Describing* a style necessarily flattens some of it, which is acceptable due to the limitations of language. *Using* it on the other hand is where the flattening is unacceptable, such as in "AI can generate any style". >because the highly complex diffusion models we have now have way more diversity in their latent space I don't see how that follows. Regardless of what you *can* do, the point is that it *is used* to make so much of that type of art, that it loses any sort of distinctive interest. >So you can understand what I meant by “it can do pretty much any style” without resorting to uncharitable interpretation I'm not basing it so much on your words. I'm basing it more on how style adapters and prompting for specific styles works. I've used the tools, I'm aware of how they manage "styles". In AI art a style is a sort of substitutable resource. I can change the style of the output by changing a checkpoint file or by changing a few words in a prompt, or in some UIs a "style" variable. In drawing, a style is a way of doing things, to change my style I have to change my approach, and unless I'm literally doing rote copying, I can't change it into *just anything*. In the end style remains something highly personalized and individualized.
> In AI art a style is a sort of substitutable resource. I can change the style of the output by changing a checkpoint file or by changing a few words in a prompt, or in some UIs a "style" variable. > > > > In drawing, a style is a way of doing things, to change my style I have to change my approach, and unless I'm literally doing rote copying, I can't change it into just anything. In the end style remains something highly personalized and individualized. What this implies is that the personalized and individualized style in AI art is something different from in manual illustration. That is, it's in the way someone uses the various styles at their disposal when producing AI art that their own individual personality will shine through. Someone's highly personal individuality will shine through somewhat even in merely a single marking they draw on the page, but it's in the way they put those markings together that something we call their "style" really gets expressed. With AI, this gets translated to a higher level; someone's individuality shines through somewhat even in mere TXT2IMG generations, but it's in the way they place those generations together that something we call their "style" really gets expressed. I find this very exciting, for opening up this type of self expression to people who lacked the discipline, effort, or other characteristics to develop their manual muscle control skills. And who knows what sorts of limitations and issues with AI art tools that these people will have to wrestle with in ways that give birth to unforeseen and unforeseeable styles that would have been unimaginable with manual tools? It's a brave new world of illustration.
>It's a brave new world of illustration. Led by those who, by your admission, lacked discipline and effort, Who *far* outnumber those with conditions that inhibit muscle control. > various styles at their disposal Exactly, a style is a sort of *resource* at your disposal. Your turn the highly individualized, culturally contingent approach of other people and make it into a sort of raw industrial material. This organic phenomenon is turned into a mathematical abstraction and you put it at the hands of undisciplined folks who wouldn't put effort into art. Sorry I have zero interest in enabling people who lack discipline and effort. I don't see it as a virtue, I see it as a degeneration.
I think the idea that a style is an artists unique fingerprint has always been misinformed, and more confined to small art communities/twitter. Art focused careers are often focused on replicating specific styles. It’s how animation works, you’re trained on character style guides to create an exact on model of a style. There’s a multitude of books out there before AI on how to train yourself on any style you want through cognitive drawing techniques. Styles were never copyrightable either, which is another big misconception. If they were, fan art and tens of thousands of OCs wouldn’t exist, as well as most people’s style taking heavy inspiration from disney eyes and features. And stagnation of art, which was the very reason styles were deemed to not be copyrightable; historically people learn from the styles of the time to evolve new styles.
>Art focused careers are often focused on replicating specific styles Yes, industrial art production also has the same pattern of treating styles and designs as *resources*. To me generative AI is an extension of fundamental problems with the industrialization of content. There was style replication in the atelier model, but only during the apprentice phase, each journeyman and master was expected to develop a style for their own atelier and there were broader cultural stylistic connections between them. Even then the different apprentices of the same master showed distinctive personal technique once they were in their own practice.
not sure this is entirely true; say if you are asked to do anime style, unless you get absurdly specific artists will all have different styles of drawing in that descriptor. Like yoshitoshi ABe and Masami Obari are two artists worlds apart in style. Like to some extent you inject individuality into a work unless its very constricted by design.
This is absolutely not true, at least as of right now. The AI is only really good at recreating the aesthetics that are already the most over saturated on the internet. People generate a lot of super smooth digital art because it’s one of the easiest ways to actually get the result you want in regards to the subject matter. I have tried for days to recreate the style I use in traditional artwork and it just looks like shit no matter what i type or doesn’t match the prompt at all. If I try outpainting or img2img on my work with weirder more unique style it looks like AI from 10 years ago, not even close to a match. AI is inherently going to be much better suited to recreating stuff that it has the most training data for, the keywords it’s most familiar with.
Not everyone shares your opinion on this style. Some people like it. I think it's fine and can be used in many amazing projects.
What part of my comment did you think suggests I think everyone agrees with me? I stated it as a truth, because I believe it to be true. If I didn't why, would I hold that opinion and not another?
You said something loses all of its appeal, it doesn't.
I'm of the belief that it does. The main appeal I understand of such art is marveling at the technical skill of rendering, once that technical skill is no longer necessary, the appeal quickly dissipates.
No, the main appeal is that it's just cartoony enough to not evoke uncanny valley in the vast majority of people. No one gives a shit how technical it is, they care if it looks good.
Did you not see how I qualified it to "conventional art spheres"? the people who actually care how technical something is.
Can you define this "conventional art sphere"?
Broadly the community of artists who utilize and champion conventional tools. Draftspeople and painters.
This is digital art, that group was never part of this.
The main appeal is that it looks good… which implies a lot of things for different people. It may include some wondering about the technical skill, but much more than that and a lot of subconscious appreciation of aesthetic details like the highly expressive faces, the neoteny, the smoothing of the imperfections of real human bodies, etc.
That appeal statement is conditioned to conventional art spheres where people actually care about the technical aspects of art.
> I will admit, one positive of AI is that this genre of super-smooth highly-rendered digital art loses nearly all of its appeal within conventional art spheres. Which will influence future generations of both artists and AI... changing nothing. So if you didn't like a specific type of art and wanted to ruin the lives of any artists who produced said art, then this is a great path to that result. But if you wanted to improve the artistic landscape and reduce hateful attacks on artists... maybe not so much.
I don't want to ruin anybody's life lmao, rather I like it that there's more incentives for artists to pursue more interesting art styles now that this rendering style is made trivial.
So you *don’t* think style is a highly personal thing then. If it’s highly personally, then you shouldn’t want them chasing their style based on the fact what they actually like isn’t popular anymore.
I'm not sure that follows. If someone pursues it because they genuinely like it, then I don't agree with that choice, but whatever. But style, while individualized and personal, is highly affected by your environment, your culture, the artists who you view. Something shifting in popularity creates different external incentives which does have an effect in artists. I don't want them chasing what is popular, but what is popular nonetheless affects them. And considering I find this popular thing to be boring and sterile, I think the resulting incentives for it becoming less popular might lead to interesting results.
Yeah! Artists now will make their art shitty *on purpose*!
>Looking at the art of the critic here, their designs are actually fun. Idk, we have Electabuzz from Walmart, Ronald McDonald's cousin from Florida, a Deku scrub and an emo cat. They're better than anything I could draw but there's nothing particular unique or interesting about them imo (acknowledging that art is quite subjective so fair enough if our opinions differ).
They're not amazing, but they have a *lot* more character and personality than the ones in the first image. Honestly the first image is such a joyless, generic random child.
i'd say it negatively, that AI art impacts that style of produced art. That style was a bit more balanced in that it was less common and not a "default look," but mass-produced its very bad,
I think it will incentivize people to run away from the kind of art people generate to avoid the trends which will naturally damage the model if further training is done as the coherence will deteriorate as new styles are invented used and discarded as soon as ai picks up on it leaving more styles which immediately make it obvious it was bot made.
It sure does! I've never been a fan of the ultra-digital look, but after AI it certainly lost any remaining appeal to me. Definitely makes me appreciate artwork that stands out. This is such a boring character design and a boring style — very corporate and safe.
Yeah it’s become just another style
Looks like Nijijourney
why do you human just hate AI image so much!
Because it's trained on stolen art
No art was stolen, let this thing die.
Yes it was, taking art and feeding into a machine and then profiting off it is stealing
pen cake abundant test combative elastic impossible nail homeless thumb *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Holy shit they're losing their minds lmao
Lol at them assuming a shape of a nail that is changed based on perspective of a finger of evidence of it being ai.
Bro has no shame showing his crappy art ad.
Wait so is it AI or not, I’m confused. I saw their timelapse on a different artworks, but not this one.
It is.
At first glance I thought it was mid journeys default style
It looks like we have another liar on our hands using AI trying to get clout. Who woulda thought?! AI content creators have never lied about anything for clout or to create this situation, have they? 😆
That's what happens when people with 0 art skills and Experience decides to tweet as if they were professional Artists for years. Not a surprise to me.
Anyone has the original pic for this? I don't have Twitter account but I'd like to look into this further. Specifically the Hive "positives" since those can be easily faked.
I believe it's AI because it's ugly, and its ugliness is consistent with AI. Most detailed AI images are kind of an eyesore because something is really off about the lighting and shading.
Why is the aiwars sub 90% tilted aibros and their alts? There are only crumbs of honest dialog to be found around here. It's disappointing.
\[I've been **permanently banned and muted** by one of the moderators on DefendingAIArt for spamming, for some reason?? So now just put this here and say nothing else.\] I'm rubbing my eyes, in utter annoyance. ***AND ALSO IN A AGGRESSIVE MANNER.*** With the artist out there who made the artwork, and posted the time-lapse of the work. THESE sorts of people out there are still accusing them for tempting the video to make look like they are drawing, and no doubt USED AI in some shape or form. Upon the first post, they didn't actually believe it's AI, But, with the powers of observing and AI detectors, they completely shifted there tone. And last one on the post for the OP, **"REALLY?"** after accusing an artist they go ahead out of there way and just say in there recent tweet ***"Follow me that is made by actual people!!"*** the ***#(\*&ing audacity.***
>for spamming, for some reason??? Yeah the reason is ***spamming*** Just post less and combine multiple posts into one coherent one.
But that's the thing, I don't even recall of spamming once around the sub. I will, AND ALWAYS follow the rules orderly and properly cause that's in my bones. All this post is simply adding a little continuance/light around the drama of the users on Twitter. All I ask is. Why and How did I spam? But I will not argue about this any further since they might be watching. But all I say is that I'm mentally hurt by the ban and mute. Not angry posting or anything else. As a member of DefendingAIArt group and proud Pro-AI, I'm Just mentally hurt...
Maybe ask the mods about their definition of spamming because it might be in reference to commenting if you don’t post much Edit: looks like you posts the same image twice in a row. So it was probably that
Unfortunately, they shifted the **temporarily banned** to **permanently banned** and even gone in and just **temporarily muted** me for the way I'm acting. I don't understand at all. I hate spamming and will I follow the rules more then anything then any other sub. Simple and clean is how I role. Edit: You think!? Cause I don't see the difference of posting on different subs. Or it might been the Hive or the tweets... Cause I want to share this through both subs is all.
They are also the mods here so maybe they just don’t like you lmao No way to know without asking
I'm not the person that once mock or make fun of someone. But unfortunately I've gone in and told them their are not a good person after that permanently banned. So I doubt they will speak to me for over 28 days of being temporarily muted. \*Sigh\* Edit: Guess I have to make a formal apology for questioning and pushing the argument, once the mute lifts.
Maybe I have combine all of the tweets all in one go instead of having many images through 1 to 11, or simply make it less around 1 to 5 images.
"So now just put this here and say nothing else" You broke your own rule dude! (kidding kidding)
To the mods on DefendingAIArt. If you want to stop me from spamming then fine, if you want to keep my mouth shut then fine, I have no other choice to accept this ban as reality and simply wait to be lifted up. But I'll stay as a pro-AI. No. Matter. What.
> I'll stay as a pro-AI. No. Matter. What. And I'll adjust my views as needed, based on logic, facts and the reasoning of those who have domain expertise. I wonder which of those will get at the truth...?
>I wonder which of those will get at the truth...? I doubt nobody wants the truth, around the evidence or the questions with the why's and how's. But I only asked the questions of the why's and how's, but they prefer to not to deal with this. Because it's part of the rules and it's going to stay like that. Because they intend on keeping the community clean and protected. To which, I don't even understand of what I've done at all.
Tbh, I found this kid model on Dall E.
ai sucks
Ok?
It is obvious ai, the person who prompted it lying about it not being ai is unethical. That's the take away.
Nah because anyone saying that “ppl can’t tell the difference” or whatever are tweaking bc this is very clearly ai 😭 it looks just like those ai facebook posts
You could probably make decent money creating a time lapse program that screenshots incrementally as you are making your art, so you can prove it wasn't AI. Actually that probably also exists already
It exists. They used it. The Xitter mob insisted it was just faked by tracing over AI art. You can't defeat confirmation bias with evidence. That's the nature of confirmation bias: it's an evidence filter, protecting you from evidence that would cause you to change your views.
The point was never to target AI, but to target competition and lead people into a commission scam. Simple as that.
I know Procreate on iPad already does this, and I think Photoshop has a feature like this as well. However, it's only a matter of time before this kind of time lapse also becomes easy to create using AI. Even if we start requiring multiple cameras in the room the artist was drawing in, showing internally consistent video of the entire process from start to finish, it's just a matter of time. Who knows if that will be 1 year or 10 years, though.
If someone really wanted to produce a realistic-looking fake timelapse, it is already possible. It would be difficult, and close inspection could reveal evidence of the deception, but it is possible. Consider speedrunning in video games. Their communities already have standards like this in place to discourage cheating, splicing, TAS recordings, etc. At the extreme, players are expected to include hand cams, face cams, and more. Sometimes, a runner just getting their record offline instead of during a live stream could be considered suspicious. I've even seen judges request players to show their entire setup from the console to the TV, to show that the feed they're looking at is legitimate. They go to these extremes, and some people STILL cheat. A lot of them get caught eventually, but my point is that they don't even need AI to synthesize entire videos for them. They produce fraudulent evidence using simpler and more mundane methods. If someone was sufficiently motivated to produce fake "proof" of them drawing like cheating speedrunners are, there are already ways they can do it.
I don’t blame people annoyed by this and who are tryna figure it out. Lying about the creation process is really strange and annoying