HOME | DD
MatsyaDas β AI devouring Art
#illustration #robot #art #noai #humanartist #humanartists #notaigenerated #notaiart #noaiart #stopai #stopaiart #no_ai_generated_art
Published: 2022-12-15 15:19:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 19196; Favourites: 262; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
AI devouring Art..
Sorry, I just felt like venting a little bit.
Related content
![OrangeSavannah - Possession [Goretober 29]](https://skunkyart.darlopvil-hub.online/media/file/ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2/f/30724125-1526-45f5-9277-b180117aba61/dbs3xtn-b7b9b971-c1d4-463a-aa38-60c1e3b91827.jpg/v1/fit/w_707,h_1000/possession_goretober_29__by_orangesavannah_dbs3xtn.jpg?filename=possession_goretober_29__by_orangesavannah_dbs3xtn.jpg&token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTAwMCIsInBhdGgiOiIvZi8zMDcyNDEyNS0xNTI2LTQ1ZjUtOTI3Ny1iMTgwMTE3YWJhNjEvZGJzM3h0bi1iN2I5Yjk3MS1jMWQ0LTQ2M2EtYWEzOC02MGMxZTNiOTE4MjcuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTcwNyJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.56mL6hhjCW3GOt1CuLjFJ6PFShCbfQRsUV0YunBzFag)
Comments: 66
read it, if you want to support me and if not, then no haha
MrTalonTheVigilante - let's use AIs to fight AIsπ: 0 β©: 0
With this kind of creativity, you have nothing to fear about replacement
You could use AIs to iterate on fun ideas like this much faster!
π: 0 β©: 0
I got a good chuckle out of this.
Though I feel like painting "AI" on the forehead is a bit awkward, it's very much in the tradition of a lot of political cartoons.
π: 1 β©: 0
Ooof! That's going to be a real pain...
π: 0 β©: 0
Not really.
I mean, first off, they can just... create usernames and passwords.
Secondly, creating barriers to people seeing your art is going to decrease views. Site traffic is good, because more traffic = greater visibility. Getting your image high on Google Images makes it way more likely people will come to your page, and that requires Google's bots to get there.
Thirdly, it's trivial for people to upload your art to boorus or to link hub sites like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and the like. Boorus in particular are really powerful tools, as they have tags, which helps the AI learn image descriptions a lot better, but are also really useful for directing people to your art, at least if you're in a particular subcommunity (Anime, Furry, etc.).
Fourth, it's not really worth worrying about in the first place. They train their AIs to be able to "see" using art, they don't actually use the art in making final images. It's not going to reproduce your art, or even really your style - people talk up the style imitations, but honestly, it's not that close overall.
Fifth, fleeing the sites with the AI artists on them is actually likely disadvantageous for visibility, because people like AI art, and the AI artist sites will likely outcompete other sites because they'll have more volume of cool images. The people who are angry over it are a small but vocal minority. You're better off putting your art alongside AI art images than you are to segregate from them, because hand-drawn art has some significant advantages (and drawbacks) relative to AI art, which allows you to differentiate yourself.
Sixth, MidJourney is already to the point where it can often generate images that are indistinguishable from hand-drawn art with a small amount of cleanup work. It's likely that V5 will produce even more work of that quality, at which point it will become impossible to keep out AI art from anywhere, because people can just not say how they made it.
π: 2 β©: 1
might be overreaching a bit here but i broadly agree, you seem pretty cool and smart :D
π: 0 β©: 0
spot fucking on and what a great reference to not only other artwork but of the myth behind it from greeces it really ties into to currrent events with AI and art right now spot on.!!!!!!
π: 2 β©: 0
You're not alone, I think a lot of artists are unhappy at the frankly shameless misuse and proliferation of the AI art system.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow that gotta be the best "no AI" art I've seen π
π: 1 β©: 0
nice topical rendition of a classic painting
π: 2 β©: 0
The AI has great potential in certain areas, such as forensics, psychology, or such. Could have a non artistic person describe their dreams or such, and the psychologist uses the AI to try and replicate what they envisioned.
Unfortunately, the programmers decided to make this a tool available for the public and for anyone to use. If they wanted to really develop this, it should have only been given to certain groups of people, and not revealed to everyone for usage.
It honestly doesn't help when you consider the fact that some prompts are simply "Beautiful" or "Very detailed".
π: 3 β©: 1
AI will be used in everything. It's just a really useful tool.
The idea of trying to hold back technology is really quite bad, though. It's much better for powerful tools to be available to the masses. It's why computers are so special.
Everyone should be able to make art using these tools, or to do other things with them. It's democratization of art, as it lowers the barriers and lets people unleash their creativity (or the lack thereof).
> It honestly doesn't help when you consider the fact that some prompts are simply "Beautiful" or "Very detailed".Β
People like playing around with the tools. I've seen people try to create stuff with as few characters as possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
If it were that simple, everyone would be a scientist, engineer, etc. Not everyone should be granted access to a super computer, much less an AI machine. Just because it can do something, does not mean it ought to be granted to everyone. Years ago, they created an AI that defeated grandmasters of chess. However, you don't see people trying to enter AI computers into chess tournaments now.
Barriers aren't being lowered. Standards and talent are.
π: 1 β©: 1
It's not "that simple". AI tools are going to be pervasive.
> If it were that simple, everyone would be a scientist, engineer, etc.Β
You can't really replace being a scientist or an engineer with an AI, but AIs can definitely facilitate their work. Scientists already use AIs for certain purposes, as do engineers.
Creating a general purpose AI is not really possible using machine learning, but you can definitely train an AI to do certain things.
> Just because it can do something, does not mean it ought to be granted to everyone.
Yes it should. That's why technology is great. The democratization of the means of production means that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it.
The cheaper and more broadly available the means of production are, the better off we are as a society.
> However, you don't see people trying to enter AI computers into chess tournaments now.Β
There are AI chess tournaments.
π: 0 β©: 0
the amount of civil discussion happening in these comments at time of writing gives me hope lol, ty for continuing the discussion about this..!! 
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful, I think you really capured what most of us have been feeling the past couple of months.
π: 3 β©: 0
... and artists.
Meanwhile AI Bros: 'AI doesn't steal, copy or plagiarise. We are not going to hear you!... Tra lala lala....'
Also, beware AI bros are actively pushing disinformation. And going as far as using language to mask themselves. Like calling themselves 'Neuro Artists', 'Transformative Artist', 'Prompt Engineer' etc.
π: 8 β©: 2
Hidden by Commenter
π: 4 β©: 1
Just like making Pineapple slices on a deep fried chicken pizza... Yikes!
Sorry... I know, I have invoked a monster. But you know what I meant there...
FrankenArt.
π: 0 β©: 0
> A computer can't learn, all it can do is copy/paste from a larger bank of data to determine the best outcome.Β
This is demonstrably false. Chess computers are better than any human can ever be.
Moreover, if you think about how self-driving cars work, they have to be able to interpret novel images - they obviously don't have every inch of every highway, with every person in every outfit from every possible angle, in their database. That's literally impossible. The machine vision in these vehicles has to be able to interpret images that aren't in the core dataset.
Thirdly, medical AIs can look at people's biometric data and make predictions, even though it has never seen their particular data before.
> Yes, I've been seeing numerous interviews with engineers trying to say that AI doesn't copy/paste other people's work, but rather that it learns from it.Β
It does "learn". It doesn't copy/paste.
If you spent any time thinking about it, it's obviously impossible for it to work any other way.
First off, the AI is actually very small - it's only about 4 GB. That's far too small to contain the images it was trained on, which are 100,000x larger in terms of file size collectively. That would be less than one pixel per image. It's obviously not storing them in it.
Secondly, as noted previously, machine vision - which is what powers these things - can look at novel images and identify them, even though it has never seen them before. If you show a machine vision system a picture of a cat, it will be able to ID it as a cat, even though it hasn't seen that particular cat before.
Thirdly, if you think about how this would have to work, a finished AI image is colored and shaded in a consistent manner, and they can have body parts in a variety of positions. For the AI to be able to do that, it would have to be able to identify parts of images, cut them up, rearrange them, paste them into a new image, then recolor and reshade them. But do to that, it would have to know what the starting image looked like, AND what the finished image should look like.
And if it knew that, it would just be able to generate the image from scratch.
Fifth, if you look at the AI diffusion process, it's obvious that it isn't a copy/paste process. It takes a randomized field, then refines it, making it less and less blurry until it generates a finished piece.
This is obviously not a copy/paste based process; it's refining an image in a step by step fashion, not copying and pasting bits and pieces.
π: 0 β©: 0
A lot of folks are spreading disinformation. I do not know why they are doing this, but it will turn very ugly at some point. Also, I doubt the people who are trying to use language to mask the lack of logic, are truly have any credible engineering backdrop. For reference, I am an engineer myself and an hobbyist artist, who happened to work on GNN statistical model, that common folks call as AI and AI bros refer as 'Neuro Art'. This is simply plagiarism. No way around it. So, yeah, I agree with you.
π: 3 β©: 2
Why are you deliberately spreading disinformation?
I'm curious.
Because watching a diffusion AI work, it's trivially obvious that it isn't plagiarizing anything, but generating an image de novo.
It's also obvious if you look at the size of the AI, it's not capable of plagarism because it's too small to contain the works it is supposedly "plagarizing" from.
It's a series of equations, not some weird collaging program.
While it's possible to use an AI to plagarize, you can plagarize using Photoshop, too.
π: 0 β©: 1
You know what? You should touch some grass, read some books, and definitely check this video out.
Also, do be careful about what you say next. Pointing fingers without any clarity on the subject matter... is foolish at best. And you just accused me of spreading disinformation.
Also, I am going to ignore your own ignorance about how 'logic' works. Simply, because you have failed to comprehend, for an algorithm to give you an 'output', it needs to be trained in 'input' as in forms of data. A lot of it.
π: 1 β©: 0
Should have give the AI bot like 15 fingers on each hand since that's rather representative of how most AI creates hands. π
π: 6 β©: 0
Here's the point of view of a client (me) who's paid many artists all over the world Β for small commissions (some private, some displayed on the Web) over a dozen years:
In addition to being inferior in so many ways, so-called "AI art" is totally outside the law in many countries: Β It does not respect copyright principles and other Intellectual Property (IP) basics. Β So-called "AI art" tramples on the rights of both a traditional creator and his traditional client by illegally "scraping" art Β and hiding the name of the original creator.
π: 9 β©: 1
Law by nature lags behind technology. I wonder how the copyright law is going to tackle the issue of the so-called AI art.
One example from yesterday: I launched DA and stumbled across a picture described as ai-generated on the basis of paintings by ZdzisΕaw BeksiΕski. The said painter is sadly no longer alive but most of his art belongs to the Historical Museum in Sanok (exclusive owner of copyrights of ZdzisΕaw BeksiΕski's works). Did the author ask for their permission? I highly doubt it. It's one thing to be inspired by someone else's style but tossing BeksiΕski's artwork into a blender and claiming the resultant mish-mash as your own is just as ridiculous as unfair.
π: 4 β©: 0
AI engineer and hobby artist here:
while i think the image quality of modern algorithms is neat, it totally rubs me the wrong way seeing all the "artists" posting their ai generated images. if they would at least credit the algorithms they use... but most don't even do that, they dont even give the images proper titles
ai images are nothing more than pretty dolls, nice to look at but generated with no intend or soul, the are a amalgamation of all the images used for training the algorithm, the algorithm didn't have a vision of what to paint, it just got a number of words and melted some image parts associated to these words together
in that sense these ai images reflect the average skills and styles of all the real artists that created the images used to train these algorithms
and while this is kinda interesting, the intend which was present, in the details of the artworks, when the single real images were drawn, vanishes...
and the lack of intend and thought shows in ai art
thus when i wanna create an image i would rather crack open my sai and photoshop instead of throwing some words at an algorithm
π: 8 β©: 0
Iβm Out of the loop here, but whatβs going on that prompted this?
π: 0 β©: 1
AI programs are now able to make high quality art with verbal prompts. Β DA has a program that does it, too.
π: 2 β©: 1
And to make matters worse, the in house ai for Deviantart, DreamUp, initially (or still?) gathered up the art made by dead artists who still have accounts here. These dead users either don't have relatives that can opt out of having their art shared and imitated by DreamUp, or their relatives either don't actually care or don't take care of their socials as well as they should. Β Anyway, I'm not sure if it still has all those dead artists art in it, or if it has been purged from its system, but I don't want to touch it either way.
π: 3 β©: 0
This is the last thing I'm seeing on DeviantArt. Poetic in that the very subject matter is the very reason I'm deactivating.
π: 6 β©: 0
I don't have anything against AI art in general. Β I've seen some nice stuff made with it and a program that can pump out customized designs for any number of reasons is something I'm looking forwards to having.
But I do think that AI will cause the same issues I take with 3d art, only worse. Β Namely that's it's an easily accessible program that allows someone to crank out tons of low-effort, cookie-cutter 'art.' Β Yes, I know that there's wildly varying levels of quality for 3d/cgi artwork. Β It does take skill and effort to make the really good stuff, but the vast majority of what I see is cheap and varies only by background and cup size.
And how much easier is it to crank out a few hundred pics with an AI program? Β How many galleries do we have on DA already that's nothing but obvious AI because the 'artists' didn't even bother to wait for the program to spit out a girl with the right number of ears or fingers that bend the right way?
π: 3 β©: 1
And of course with DreamUp, everyone remembers how when it was "always opt in" and even when they changed it so you could opt out easily, the dead DA users had no way of doing that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Do my eyes see a modern take on Jupiter devouring his son? Nice!
π: 2 β©: 1
True. My mistake, thanks )
π: 1 β©: 0
This is great, but there is one flaw:
You drew normal looking hands lol
π: 12 β©: 1
Hehe, clever. Love those new takes of classic art.
π: 5 β©: 1
1 | Next =>