I agree totaly. I think that's something only humans can do. It is clear that the story behind the result adds value to the work.
By the way, as someone who thinks that AI can replace artists, I also think that the story of humans who provide AI with suggested words can replace that role.
It's a sad story. I agree enough. As civilization developed, new jobs appeared and disappeared repeatedly. AI will be part of this recurring phenomenon. New jobs may emerge that control and inspect AI. The social value you said is an important point that we must not miss. However, as a person who has been drawing for a long time, I am concerned that the role of an artist will be different from now. :)
Real artists will shrink in number; that’s for sure, but whether it dies completely is up to us. That is why it’s called the free market.
You’re looking at this from a very one-sided PoV. In supply & demand, I demand real artists. That’s all there is to it.
There is no race against machines if you ignore the machines.
Ah, sorry. It’s hard to differentiate when you’re exposed to serious statements like those
Totally agree. This is exactly the future I envision.
An artist doesn't just mean someone with dexterity. So still, artists will be able to do the same thing using AI instead of a paintbrush.
However, since artists are not the only people with creative thoughts, it seems that the range of people who use easy-to-handle AI instead of hard-to-handle brushes will widen.
I wonder if an artist can exist even after it overlaps with the artist's field of activity.
You can't draw sprites without electricity!!! :( wacom should work :) I completely agree that someone should supervise the creations created by the AI. By the way, there are many people who do not have manual dexterity but have amazing senses. If it is an AI brush that is much easier to handle than a brush, wouldn't it be possible for non-artists to supervise it?
You can draw sprites without electricity but with pen or pencil on paper :D.
As for supervision, it really depend on desired quality of the product. If the dev is happy with low quality artwork from the AI, it's fine for them. Maybe it's their intention and probably they don't need professional artist in the first place.
However, if the dev wants high quality artwork, professional artist might be needed to supervise the art creation by AI.
I watched in a youtube video that this AI requires more electric power and that's the downside of AI.
There's quite a few people on here using them, but from what I've seen it was mostly for portraits for stuff like visual novels.
The main limiting factor keeping it from being more widespread, imo, is animation (because, and as harsh as this is going to sound, nobody really cares that much about the ethic side of things right now except artists or people in the online art sphere). Most AI I've seen is just now starting to get a good grasp of making static images, but the stuff in terms of animating a small video is uncanny and a bit choppy. With most games, that probably isn't going to improve much unless someone feeds a model some good ol' post-the Dover Boys cartoons in order to teach it how to stretch frame (It'll eventually become very adept at frame-by-frame posing for more rigid designs, I have no doubt, but for things like weapon trails or non-"realistic" artstyles it'll still need to know how to do convey motion in a single image). And even then it's going to take a relative while for it to learn how to pull that off in a convincing way.
:) I hope it isn't either :) The traditional clothing looks amazing!!! It's much better than here :|
It's really surprising that there have been cases where copyright has not been acknowledged. The copyright issue is probably the most important part of the current situation. The result of the recent lawsuit filed by Gettyimage could be the starting point. It's clear that copyright should be protected, and as you said, personal AI would be the most appropriate future, and I totally agree.
There was a site that checks if AI has used my drawing. It's full of surprises.
Ive seen various over youtube and itch, heres one https://joewantsabrew.itch.io/light-ball
I found this website where they evaluate what jobs are at risk with AI. Maybe you know it already, otherwise here it is: https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/
Interesting thread, by the way! And no, I don't think it can. Because AI can only assemble what already exists, but creativity imo means making something that didn't exist before.
This is an interesting website. It is interesting to note that the average salary of graphic artists in the US is relatively low compared to other occupational groups. This is an unexpected result. :(
This itself reads like it was written with ChatGPT.
AI is not “just a tool”. It doesn’t use you - it has no need to - but it has taken over you, that’s for sure.
Don’t fear it, embrace it!
A common quote, but if it’s said there’s probably good reason to fear it. This is the kind of things cults say.
exactly, it's far harder to control than most people think. it's getting better of course, but still it wont be able to make creative decisions for you. those will still need to be done by someone with good taste.
I can respect this position, but we all know of businesses and their “never too much money” mentality. I fear increasing automation will turn everyone into people like them.
As long as you’re aware of this danger, though, I think you’ll be fine.
I hear you on the big business - and it's a possibility we can't rule out. They long since went that way with copywriters (the previous field of my business, which was harmed by the advent of ChatGPT).
BUT... I have a theory (and a mission to help make sure I'm right, lol). AI is tricky for big businesses, particularly in the game space. Since you can't copyright most AI art*, it makes using those assets tricky for a big company in a commercial release. Can you imagine a world where Geralt is a public domain character because he was AI art generated? You can see the problem.
* = You can copyright some AI art if you put a bunch of post-work into it. It's a case by case basis. Buuuut... I think that's crap. I think you shouldn't be able to because once an AI creates it, that piece of art is the product of humanity writ large, not you. Even if you do a lot of work on the image. I'm hoping to put my money where my mouth is and I've promised not to try and copyright any assets I create, even the ones that I did more work than the AI. I just don't think it's ethical to try.
AND - I think that's also the legislative solution in the long run. I think we need to push for laws that clarify that no matter how much effort you put into something, if it started life as an AI prompt it isn't yours. I'd love a future where you can use AI for anything you want... you just can't OWN what it creates. Therefore, if you want to use it in some meaningful way, you're going to have to bring your own creativity and talent, something you CAN own, to profit off of it. (I make a joke about this in the credits of "Blew It!". You should be able to see it in the free demo so you don't have to buy the full version if you wanna' see the snark for yourself, hehe).
but a cheap copy compared to a good photograph.
If you ask me, it is a photograph that is cheap.
But how many Artists went out of job, when animation movies were no longer hand drawn, but made with computers?
This is the typical strawman you get when you falsely call AI “just a tool”. It’s like saying a tiger is “just a cat”. AI is arguably the single most advanced tool put out by people to date.
People who moved to digital art had their area of skill remain. They still have to wield the stylus just as they would wield their brush; they still need the ability to draw from memory, mind, knowledge on the laws of motion; little to no intellectual change has to occur. This is clearly not so with AI, which shifts the area and the level of skill necessary. The “lead artist” in your head I would rather call an “idea guy”, and I hate those for a reason – compared to the workers, they’re leeches.
And from what I read, that grunt work has to be sorted out quite thoroghly, what with the missing arms and other mistakes.
You said yourself that skill can be trained to perfection, so this is temporary and clearly not within their ideal. Why talk about this in the first place?
If we scoff at AI usage, we should also scoff at people not drawing on paper and scanning it in.
Again, this logic follows from the previous false equivalence. This is simply false. The jump between paper and digital is far greater than between digital and AI-based.
I would be willing to pay the extra money for a paper-made drawing, but I do not see that as a reason to scoff at digital artists. That does not extend towards AI, because users of AI do nothing artists do.
But if your work as an Artist is mindlessly drawing the same picture in different angles… tough.
Funny how you call art mindless, because I would instead say it is writing text into a cheap AI that is mindless. One is filled with passion, devotion and the determination to make yourself the best you can be; the other is based on greed and the desire to pump out meritless crap as quickly as possible.
There is no positive side to killing skill, because it turns us into slaves and degenerates. This is the road you head down each step you take towards post-scarcity.
There is nothing good about Star Trek’s world. The only reason it is interesting at all is because the writers went out of their way to impose limits on that post-scarcity, i.e. making it not post-scarcity at all. Imagine if that weren’t the case: “Computer, make a program to solve our problem.” Roll credits.
If you ask me, it is a photograph that is cheap.
Of course it is. Quite literally. But the task in context was to have an acurate picture. If your task is to have a hand crafted unique piece done by a known artist ... well, there are famous photographers as well. Showing that the real Art is just application of skill. While both make images, they use different skillsets. An AI Artist, as in, someone who uses an AI tool to create stuff, would use a different skillset as well. And of course there are the evil cheaters that use the imagination of a reader to paint pictures, just by using words (yes, that was a joke, but the point stands, that even this is just another skillset to create pictures in the mind of the observer)
This is the typical strawman you get when you falsely call AI “just a tool”. It’s like saying a tiger is “just a cat”.
You should maybe look up, what a strawman is. The tiger is a cat fallacy only works if you want to treat a tiger like a cat because of some shared trait, that is not relevant for the discussion at hand. And that is not even a strawman, that is a false equivalency. Oh, and if the discussion at hand is about what they both have in common, like traits of felidae, it is not even a fallacy.
The AI discussion is the conflict of individual (traditional) work vs. mass production (with advanced tech). Should we condem it or should we embrace it, and why. If condemnation, why did we not condem other forms of mass production. If we embrace it, should there be constraints, other mass productions do not have. In the evolution of picture creation it is not the first tech jump. And no, there were times when painting a picture was not something anyone could do. You would not even have the colors to do so. Mixing paint was a trade secret. A few hundred years later, everyone can post a perfect picture on the net. In seconds. No hand mixed colors needed, no years long training, no canvas, just a button press and an activated filter or three. You can even order your picture printed on canvas and hang it on your wall.
You might be able to flesh out the not just a mere tool argument. That somehow this tech jump is so much different from other advances. Because on the outside it sure looks quite similar. Something previously hard to do and only with special training and experience is now available to the untrained to do for a fraction of the price.
And I even think, that some uses of AI should be forbidden. But even there, that would be bascially stuff that is forbidden for human artists as well. See the tracing vs. "reference material" discussions. Artists copy from each other without consent quite often and there is a thin line everyone has a different opion about, what is ok and what is not ok.
The jump between paper and digital is far greater than between digital and AI-based.
So? A difference in quantity changes the quality? I was being overly sarcastic, should you not have noticed.
Funny how you call art mindless
Funny how you try to misrepresent my points. That is an actual strawman, by the way. No, I did not call art mindless. Let me rephrase it, so you might understand it better. I said, if your actual job of "art" is to mindlessly creating the same pictures in different angles, that you will lose your job to a robot. As an example, the people drawing animation in the older animation movies. There were people drawing and animating each frame. They had an artist drawing the key frames and other artists drawing the in-between frames.
the other is based on greed and the desire to pump out meritless crap as quickly as possible
Are you talking about chinese sweatshops now, where they paint on canvas? Yes, that is a thing.
There is nothing good about Star Trek’s world.
Oh boy. That's a good one. Did I say StarTrek is good or interesting? No. Does it matter to the discussion? No.
What did matter, was the portraial of a working AI and how far away we currently are from that. What can currently be replaced with AI is stuff that is more on the mechanical and not the creative side of "Art".
An AI Artist, as in, someone who uses an AI tool to create stuff, would use a different skillset as well.
“Skillset”. Please, an AI artist can only be the AI itself, because an AI user does not do what defines an artist.
The tiger is a cat fallacy only works if you want to treat a tiger like a cat because of some shared trait
Indeed, that’s what you did. You used the common trait that they are tools to place them on equal footing, despite the very clear differences between them that necessitate different approaches to both (which I explain a second time below).
If condemnation, why did we not condem other forms of mass production.
Other forms of mass production kept skill or introduced other areas where skill is necessary. Other forms of mass production kept jobs quality and fulfilling. AI does neither, because it is designed to kill jobs. And the few jobs which remain shall be completely inconsequential and minute compared to the work done by the AI itself.
As to what counts as a quality job, that is up to workers to decide. That drivers are revolting against self-driving cars is a good hint.
A few hundred years later, everyone can post a perfect picture on the net.
Again, misleading text. Everyone could have posted a picture online in seconds before. I also object to the word perfect.
The mass production of paper and other such tools did not decrease the skill necessary to draw. It simply allowed everyone to realize that skill.
With AI, there is little to no skill involved because you’re not even the one drawing, so it’s beyond a stretch to call the drawing “yours”.
No hand mixed colors needed, no years long training, no canvas, just a button press and an activated filter or three.
And what is the meaning of that painting? It makes you feel guud? How does it feel, having a painting worth as much as the few words you’ve typed on your keyboard? Have you expressed yourself and your feelings, or is it merely the AI’s interpretation of your words? At that point, just hang the words on the wall. Have fun showing off the meritless paintings on your wall to another dude with meritless paintings on his wall. I’m sure he’ll care. Christ, that sounds awful. That’s exactly what I mean by slaves and degenerates in my previous post.
Artists copy from each other without consent quite often and there is a thin line everyone has a different opion about, what is ok and what is not ok.
Is this not comparing AI to human intelligence? When a person copies they improve. Even with tracing a person improves their motor functions. When their AI superior copies, nothing happens to the person.
Something previously hard to do and only with special training and experience is now available to the untrained to do for a fraction of the price.
That something hard to do remains hard, because those untrained people still do nothing. They never drew and they never will; their AI will do it for them. So a better description would be “is now available to the untrained to order for a fraction of the price”. Very self-centered, when you consider the real artists.
Are you talking about chinese sweatshops now, where they paint on canvas? Yes, that is a thing.
I’m talking about AI-based drawings. These Chinese sweatshops may be a thing, but it means little; greed is greed.
Did I say StarTrek is good or interesting? No. Does it matter to the discussion? No.
I did not say you did, but I say it certainly matters, because half the reason people want this automation nonsense is because of naive visions like that of Star Trek. Your starry-eyed description of supposed drawing at near-zero price suggests you hold nothing against the idea.
Your mistake is in thinking automation will improve people. It will not. It might improve the quality of an end-product, but not people. They will stay as they were, and with near-zero work (near-infinite convenience) they will rot away. I value people more than I value machinery and end results.
Your approach lies in nitpicking minute details in my points, glossing over the rest and repeating the same things over. I do not intend to convince you – as far as I see, you are dead-set in all of your beliefs – I intend to showcase readers why your view isn’t so clear-cut. I think my points are clear, so I see no reason to continue.
You seem to think that an AI is a person. It is an expert system that can do one thing and one thing only. It has no agency, no motivation. It is literally software. A thing we created to do a task. In other words: a tool. You hear AI and think about those robot science fiction movies, do you? There is even one that has that exact name, AI.
No one cared about keeping skill sets with mass production, job quality or whatever fulfilling means. You think AI is designed to kill jobs? Really? Would you make that same assumption about electric light? That it was designed to kill the jobs of the guys lighting the gaslamps at night? Because that is what happened. They were out of job overnight.
The tool of neural networks that can be trained how images "work" in relation to concepts and then be used to create an image is not designed to kill jobs, it is designed to do what I just wrote. It's early adaption will of course be to make things cheaper, like each and every other advance in technology. And that is, why this is to be treated the same, not only because it is a tool. Being a tool just emphazises that it is not a free agent, but used by other humans. If jobs are destroyed, they are not taken by "AI", they are taken by other humans that use more efficient tools or different methods. We need to discuss (not here), the limitations that should or should not imposed on that technology. Just because it might or will destroy jobs, is not enough. It never has been.
People get emotional, because they think that somehow "art" is any different from mundane tasks like painting a wall or mowing a lawn. And we do have lawn mowers with AI that were built so people would not have to do the work, because there is a market for that. Just like washing machines or how farming machines do the work of hundreds of field workers.
Just read your post. It reeks of emotional appeal. You even go so far as to appeal to the improvement of people. And I do not think you got my view on the matter.
My view is, that most "art" is not that different from boring mundane tasks. Like field work or preparing fast food. You create something that has no practical application other than being looked at. Maybe it is because of that? If you cook good, your art has a practical use. If you paint good, your art has to have meaning?
I thought about the "not a tool" some more. Maybe people have problems with that, because this tool also changes the skill set significantly. As a painter and a photographer you have to know about lighting and poses, about scene composition and stuff. How to use an AI software requires other skills. Your previous painting skills, should you have them, might only be usefull to better sift through the output of your AI and find the good ones and discard the bad ones, like the example given in the thread of pictures where there is anatomy wrong.
So in a sense, it is not just a tool to make work faster, it is also a tool to have the work being done by someone trained differently or not at all. The analogy of Birtish Longbowman vs. Crossbows comes to mind. Any fool can aim and shoot a crossbow, but it takes years of practice with a bow.
