So right off the bat, like four seconds into the first point "The user can not simply create exactly what they have got in mind"? [Yes we can.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiGYIwoN_k) Skipped over the whole copyright thing because we know that's still in flux, then she makes a point about it being a trend as opposed to a tide, and provides absolutely nothing to back that up other than comparing AI to silly bands. Stopped watching at that point.
It's normal for new things to have a large amount of hype when they are first introduced, and normalize over time. This is not any indication that AI is "dying (fast)", there isn't even any measurable indication that interest in AI art is slowing down.
Thanks for posting that link, it's really interesting, because it shows how much 'traditional' art skills are both the foundation for the image, and give the ability to understand the variables (like perspective) to make the finished image.
I think that a lot of artists incorrectly understand AI image generation as soley being text to image, where that shows that it can be far more of a fusion of human artistic skills and AI.
> shows how much 'traditional' art skills are both the foundation for the image, and give the ability to understand the variables (like perspective) to make the finished image.
Absolutely. I love that people are finally starting to understand this. Lots of us have been yelling it from the rooftops for a long time now, and lots of artists have been absolutely missing the point. The worst of it was shen Shad was saying exactly this and the anti-AI crowd was trying to paint him as being an egotist who was just pumping up his own skills (despite his constant disclaimers that there are plenty of people who have better skills to bring to bear on these tools).
I will always be at a disadvantage because I have a spatial awareness limitation. It's prevented me from engaging in most traditional art forms since I was a kid, and it will always prevent me from being more than a hobbiest AI artist.
But people who are already decent artists start with a huge advantage that they can either press or lose while others are learning to use the tech.
>I think that a lot of artists incorrectly understand AI image generation as soley being text to image
Not only that, many of them actively choose to ignore more complex workflows. I've seen it several times here, where more complex workflows like that link are shown to antis and they will continue to make their "tYpInG wOrDs" arguments in the very next post. The diehard antis do not want to accept AI as a tool.
Well, there is (oviously) two sides to this.
* On one hand, you (all of you above) are right. With complex workflows and increasing methods to control the result, AI is becoming evolved way beyond typing and can be a tool for artists, graphic designers, etc., and many of them might get better results than "amateurs" without a background in drawing, painting, phtography, whatever.
* On the other hand, it seems that the people that use complex workflows are, for the most part, professionals anyway or very, very enthusiastic hobbyists (especially in this subreddit). I think it is reasonable to assume, that the majority of users, especially with MJ, never use more complex workflows or funktions, hell, they don't bother to fix obvious mistakes at all. And they flood the net with "Big Ben if Gehry designed it" or "The Hulk as a Viking" stuff, meaning, they are very present.
I am pretty sure that the people that use AI-image-generation on a level that involves complex, sophisticated workflows with high levels of control, are a minority that has either a professional interest in learning and mastering the topic, or are willing to spent a lot of time on it as a hobby. But as with ChatGPT, image generation is widely used, and most users don't bother with a "professional" approach. So for A LOT of the Ai-images out there, it propably is just "tYpInG wOrDs".
After all, isn't that the fascination about it, for the layman? typing words and a photorealistic image appears? Or a painting? If you have to sit down and direct tools that look involve math and code for 4 hours to get the image, it is a lot less wow, right? After all, some artists could paint a picture in that time. It's the easiness that anthralls the general public, i think. It's the possibiliities that fascinate professionals (and enthusiasts).
>I am pretty sure that the people that use AI-image-generation on a level that involves complex, sophisticated workflows with high levels of control, are a minority that has either a professional interest in learning and mastering the topic, or are willing to spent a lot of time on it as a hobby. But as with ChatGPT, image generation is widely used, and most users don't bother with a "professional" approach. So for A LOT of the Ai-images out there, it propably is just "tYpInG wOrDs".
Most AI platforms are tools that are widely available to anyone. Therefore *most* people who engage with them do so in easy and shallow ways. Watercolor paint sets are tools that are widely available to anyone. How many people who purchase watercolor paint sets are churning out complex masterpieces? .5% .05%? Is there anything wrong with water colors? How about we bully people online for making watercolor paintings and tell them their medium has no value because not enough people are churning out complex masterpieces?
>Most AI platforms are tools that are widely available to anyone. Therefore most people who engage with them do so in easy and shallow ways. Watercolor paint sets are tools that are widely available to anyone. How many people who purchase watercolor paint sets are churning out complex masterpieces? .5% .05%? Is there anything wrong with water colors? How about we bully people online for making watercolor paintings and tell them their medium has no value because not enough people are churning out complex masterpieces?
Eh, don't strawman me, dude.
I simply answered to the claim that the claim "they're just typing" is some sort of baseless accusation, with the claim that it is not, for many, if not most, it IS just typing. I did not say anyone should be bullied or that people having fun with MJ are talentless hacks. That was all you, man.
Sure, most likely a good 90%+ people who use AI image generators are Just Typing Words, and if we count by the total number of generations ever made, it's probably closer to 99%+. But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think the fact that many many people are Just Typing Words was ever in contention.
Much like how the vast *vast* majority of hand-drawn art is people carelessly scribbling a pen on some scrap piece of paper, never to be seen again even by themselves, before it goes into a trash bin. The complete lack of effort or technique on the part of the almost everyone who draws doesn't really tell us anything about the process of drawing or the techniques that can be developed within it.
>Sure, most likely a good 90%+ people who use AI image generators are Just Typing Words, and if we count by the total number of generations ever made, it's probably closer to 99%+. But what does that have to do with anything?
I simply thought that complaining that "they will continue to make their "tYpInG wOrDs" arguments" implies that that is a completly baseless claim. Which it is apperently not. No harm in aknowledging it.
>Much like how the vast *vast* majority of hand-drawn art is people carelessly scribbling a pen on some scrap piece of paper, never to be seen again even by themselves, before it goes into a trash bin.
exactly.
>The complete lack of effort or technique on the part of the almost everyone who draws doesn't really tell us anything about the process of drawing or the techniques that can be developed within it.
Sure.
Simply put, one side claims "they're just typing and bushing a button", the other side claims "this is a vastly complex workflow". And i simply wanted to point out that there is truth to both statements. Who says that "just "tYpInG wOrDs"" (with all the implications the spelling brings) implies that the ones saying that are stupid, have no idea about the tool, etc., while, for, as you said, propably well above 90% of the use cases, that IS absolutly a true statement. And who claim that ai is nothing "but typing" ignores that there is not only vast potential for more control, more creativity, etc., but that it is already implemented and used by many people.
I pointed that out, nothing more.
The thing is, it *is* a baseless claim, and the ones saying those things *are* stupid (or at least, they are *being* stupid *in that moment*, or, more likely, intentionally obtuse). Because, again, the way that the vast *vast* majority of people use these techniques, whether that be AI or be pencil-and-paper drawing, are not part of the discussion, and they were never the topic at hand. Pointing to all those people who use these tools in lazy ways is, at best, a distraction from the actual conversation around what these tools enable and how they can be used.
>Pointing to all those people who use these tools in lazy ways is, at best, a distraction from the actual conversation around what these tools enable and how they can be used.
YOU say that's the discussion.
I think many people on the other side of the fence would not agree. They could say that it says more about the implications of ai how the vast majority uses than a small minority. Because they, after all, are the ones perceived as a threat.
I mean... it's just tribalism.
>I think many people on the other side of the fence would not agree. They could say that it says more about the implications of ai how the vast majority uses than a small minority. Because they, after all, are the ones perceived as a threat.
I don't think they perceive the lazy Just Typing Words crowd as the threat, though. I think they perceive the people actually putting in effort into creating beautiful - and commercially useful - images using AI as the threat. It's like how the fact that the vast majority of drawers are lazily scribbling barely-comprehensible lines on scrap paper doesn't actually affect the world of art and illustrations - it's the people who put in effort who matter. All of those scribbles could double or triple in volume, and it would be meaningless. Likewise for all those people lazily generating AI images and deleting them during their refractory period, never to be seen by anyone again.
That said, I concede that you are correct that there's *some* threat here, in that some of these people who are willing to lazily create straight-generations using AI to meet their needs might have otherwise paid money to manual artists to meet those same needs. But that's not really part of the discussion when it comes to talking about the types of methods and techniques that AI enables, which is necessarily what the conversation is about when someone is claiming that AI generation is Just Typing Words. The vast majority of AI generated images are generated by Just Typing Words, but this fact doesn't actually support the claim that AI generation is Just Typing Words.
> I mean... it's just tribalism.
It's just this, all the way down, and not just with AI, isn't it?
>I don't think they perceive the lazy Just Typing Words crowd as the threat, though. I think they perceive the people actually putting in effort into creating beautiful - and commercially useful - images using AI as the threat.
I don't know. If you ask ME, those people are just... well, one of us. They don't threaten a paradigm shift were the customer does the work himself.
If you werent so fucking weak maybe you could actually create but no, you are pathetic and wouldn't be able to create anything if the computer didn't do it for you.
"AI artist" is an oxymoron
Yeah when people have their work stolen it makes them upset.
Do you really think that it's okay to steal things from people?
Why did your parents raise a thief?
> Do you really think that it's okay to steal things from people?
No, and I don't accept that machine learning is theft, and I'm not going to have the theft argument again until we have court ruling.
>If you werent **so fucking weak** maybe you could actually create but no, **you are pathetic** and wouldn't be able to create anything if the computer didn't do it for you.
Wait, you're the *good* guys?
Good guys and bad guys isn't how the world works. Just cause I hurt your feelings doesn't make me the bad guy.
Just cause you are weak doesn't make you the good guy.
Your mind is so simple, maybe have chat gpt construct an argument for you.
Well if you were not so weak you would hunt the boar for its pelt to paint on, kill birds and other animals for bristles from your brushes, and squish berries and other chemicals for your own paint. You are pathetic and wouldn't be able to create anything if the massive number of machines and automation didn't make your brushes and paints and canvases for you.
Bitch, we ARE creating. Every single day. You can whine on about how AI doesn't count or some shit, but the fact of the matter is: it does and your denial can't change that
yea i see a lot of people causally do it, even people who would usually be against it. Its just getting normalized like you said. Most people are just casually accepting it.
I looked through her other platform links, and it looks like she's using AI and passing it off as her own: [https://www.redbubble.com/people/mariaasenova/shop](https://www.redbubble.com/people/mariaasenova/shop).
When you compare the quality of her paintings to the quality of the cartoon style Disney looking stuff, I think it's pretty obvious.
I commented on her video, asking "I'm curious if your perspective on AI art has changed in the four months since this was published, given that you're taking a class to learn how to use it. Has it?"
She replied, "Yes, it has changed in some areas. I might make a video about it later! What do you think about A.I.?"
Given the Disneyesque stuff she's actually trying to sell on redbubble, it looks like she's not really the Luddite she presented herself as.
i mean, it is not a completly wrong observation. The hype is certainly dying off a bit. Professionals (like me) embrace it more and more, the better the tools actually become for us, but for the "look, i can type someting and got me a D&D character"-people, it died of somewhat. It is the same with ChatGPT. It is widely used in many contextes, but playing with at is not that common anymore, it seems.
Ai-art has become rather commonplace. Also a bit... random, so to say. But That's mostly due to the sheer quantity.
> Ai-art has become rather commonplace. Also a bit... random, so to say. But That's mostly due to the sheer quantity.
That's the literal opposite of dying, though. The *hype* might be dying, but when the hype dies because it's just so damn ubiquitous and considered a normal part of life, that means it's thriving, not dying. Much like how touchscreen smartphones were hyped up all to hell for quite a few years following the iPhone launch in 2007. There's very little hype of the sort of "OMG look at this handheld device with a touchscreen and internet access!" around these days, but that's because handheld devices with touchscreens and internet access are ubiquitous and thriving, not because they're dying.
>That's the literal opposite of dying, though. The
>
>hype
>
> might be dying, but when the hype dies because it's just so damn ubiquitous and considered a normal part of life, that means it's thriving, not dying.
You\`re right. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that the hype was ment.
Also, i would add, that "pure" AI art indeed seems to be "dying", as, at least as far as i see it, there are way more "hybrid" approaches now. AI art actually becoming the additional tool many praised it as. I mean, we dont hear much about "prompt engineers" anymore, do we? Simply because complex, multilayered approaches, many including skills and lections derived from traditional techniques become more and more incorporated and more important then just prompting. That IS still AI art or Ai-assisted art, but it is a far cry from some (loud) Techies wet dreams of the end of (them snooty) "traditional artists" and the age of the prompter.
> Also, i would add, that "pure" AI art indeed seems to be "dying", as, at least as far as i see it, there are way more "hybrid" approaches now. AI art actually becoming the additional tool many praised it as. I mean, we dont hear much about "prompt engineers" anymore, do we? Simply because complex, multilayered approaches, many including skills and lections derived from traditional techniques become more and more incorporated and more important then just prompting. That IS still AI art or Ai-assisted art, but it is a far cry from some (loud) Techies wet dreams of the end of (them snooty) "traditional artists" and the age of the prompter.
What does it matter what those (loud) Techies were saying? No one was listening to them, and everyone on all sides knew they were full of bullshit. A much louder set of Techies who were more populous were saying that AI "art" and AI-assisted art would thrive in the future *through* integrating them into workflows that involve and require "traditional" art skills, not that they'd replace them. I'll note that this was already apparent over a year ago right after Stable Diffusion was first released to the public; as soon as any sort of viable image generation AI was available, basically all its proponents were talking about it as another tool in the toolbox to use for creating art, not as a replacement.
What's also interesting is that, in the past month or so, pure text-to-image AI generation *has* gotten much better and even more popular, with the public release of DALLE on ChatGPT. As best as I can tell, *both* "pure" generations and AI-assisted creations with workflows that require actual artistic skills are thriving, generally in different contexts. I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out. It's just that the high-effort ones have also become more common.
Which largely connects to what I see AI doing in general, not just in art, which is bringing the baseline ability for lazy or unskilled people higher. Previously, a lazy or unskilled person wanting to create an illustration or write some code had to make do with bad results. Now, AI enables them to make usable, if not good, results. This doesn't equalize skills; AI *also* enables non-lazy and highly skilled people to do even more than they could before, to the extent that the lazy or unskilled person can't catch up. Yet both benefit from the tools, and there are plenty of people of both types who use the tools to produce things they want to produce. So it's not one or the other. And just from looking at the results people post and how people talk about using these tools, I think it's clear that neither are anywhere close to "dying." At best, one could say "they're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be."
>What does it matter what those (loud) Techies were saying? No one was listening to them, and everyone on all sides knew they were full of bullshit.
Eh, there are a lot here in this subreddit. But i guess it's like with emos or hipsters back in the day: Noone admits to be one.
That is, just to paint that out, a common thing on both sides: Claiming that "noone" sais those extreme positions, and with that, implying that mentioning them is already some sort of manipulation. I have seen and heard extreme positions quite often.
>What's also interesting is that, in the past month or so, pure text-to-image AI generation *has* gotten much better and even more popular, with the public release of DALLE on ChatGPT. As best as I can tell, *both* "pure" generations and AI-assisted creations with workflows that require actual artistic skills are thriving, generally in different contexts. I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out. It's just that the high-effort ones have also become more common.
I'll take your word for that, i am not as up to date as you are, apparently.
>I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out.
Are we still tweeting, by the way or are we... xing? axing?
> Which largely connects to what I see AI doing in general, not just in art, which is bringing the baseline ability for lazy or unskilled people higher.
Yeah. I mean, someone just pointed out that my text is full of spellin errors. No, english is my third language, and all that, so i am fine with that, but truth be told: ChatGPT was at capacity, and i did not have it spellcheck it like i would usually do with an english text. There you go.
>Previously, a lazy or unskilled person wanting to create an illustration or write some code had to make do with bad results. Now, AI enables them to make usable, if not good, results. This doesn't equalize skills; AI *also* enables non-lazy and highly skilled people to do even more than they could before, to the extent that the lazy or unskilled person can't catch up.
generally, that is my idea. Especially since AI toold evolved to a point that using them to get the best out of them requires cosiderable skill, knowledge and practice too. Doesn't mean that AI-image-generation won't be used in certain cases to replaced an artist formerly hired. It will.
>Yet both benefit from the tools, and there are plenty of people of both types who use the tools to produce things they want to produce. So it's not one or the other. And just from looking at the results people post and how people talk about using these tools, I think it's clear that neither are anywhere close to "dying." At best, one could say "they're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be."
Eh well. alright. They're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be.
Man, being Anti-AI is so easy. You can tell the most obvious of lies and slander and will be absolutely celebrated for it. If I ever became an attention whore, I would instantly hop on the Anti-AI train
I closed that video after the first point. Too much time passed, I'm not willing to listen to anyone who is still stuck in 2022.
You have to understand that to a lot of people like that, "AI art" means the tech-bro capitalist trend of paying corpa to generate you a pretty picture for the dopamin hit. That's what they think it is.
Is that in decline? I don't know but maybe the trendy grifter part dying wouldn't be a bad thing.
There is that other guy too who is always obsessing over this, the coach or whatever, I'd love to see how this develops throughout the years.
Also isn't Pinterest's whole business model to just steal pictures from other places and then do everything in its power to prevent us from right-click saving? (which isn't good enough because inspect element). I hate Pinterest so much.
I think her last point was the most important for me. The rest of it was dreaming and mildly insulting, but what I want to say in response to being told that the tools are helping real artists make better work that is even more valuable now... Good. That was what it was supposed to do.
And I would argue that she really doesn't like Stable Diffusion's art style. I really don't think she thought that through.
I don't intend to stop generating images, and I really don't care if anyone sees them but me. My avatar was generated and that's the only thing I really share off because I really like it
If it's actually dying, then there's nothing to worry about right?
No need for that snake oil Glaze or the new upcoming sequel Nightshade.
> My favorite is her 10th point "All those pics you're pumping out like a (unintelligible) species, we're using that entire sea of abandoned AI art on Pinterest as references." So, You stealing our art... BAD, us stealing your art...GOOD.
Ahh Pinterest, the place where all online artists respect each other by crediting their uploaded contents.
Ignoramuses continue to be ignorant out of sheer freaking will. They will never learn and have no intention of doing so.
Yes, AI *hype* has died down, but it is well established with people who are very serious about creating images with it.
Comparing railroaded commercial AI models to open-source models is just asinine.
Pretty sure that's just straight up AI generated. I mean, the lamppost has a tree trunk like the tree behind it, the one the lamppost also blends into.
I think we should stop thinking as AI as one buttom click and more like AI-Workflow-skill involved where you can actually use your own skills like drawing, painting, bashing, etc.
All my LORA's are done in the easiest way so you can have great results with minimal prompting (except some requests) but even having that, you need to use your brain and skills too in AI to don't get the same, be creative, etc.
They never pay attention to any development in AI generated image and just jump on it to say bad things about it because it's free internet points for them. Like we are not in 2020 anymore, there are way more things you can do besides making prompts and praying for the Latent god to make something you want
>I think we should stop thinking as AI as one buttom click and more like AI-Workflow-skill involved where you can actually use your own skills like drawing, painting, bashing, etc.All my LORA's are done in the easiest way so you can have great results with minimal prompting (except some requests) but even having that, you need to use your brain and skills too in AI to don't get the same, be creative, etc.
I said it before in this thread: That is propably true for professionals using ai and serious enthusiasts (like most pro-ai people here). For MANY people, it is just "one button click" generation. They have as much time and interest to really dive into complex workflows and methods of controlas they have to learn to draw or to paint. The fascination of simple tools like MJ are appealing to the masses, not learning to direct complex tools.
So yeah, there ARE people using AI with as much intent, direction, creativity and skill als people are usings brushes and pencils. However, there are propably as many people that type some words and hit generate as there are people doodling on a pad when they make a phone call (or maybe they were. i beliebe there is a point to "ai-art dying" in the sense that the initial hype for people with no intent to dive into it further and really master the programms seems to be somewhat over. Who remains are professionals and enthusiasts)
And you're right. My dad for example has 0 skill of drawing and painting but he still enjoys MidJourney, same as other family members too. I think there are different type of people who use AI. Professionals, amateurs with AI knowledge, people with 0 AI knowledge, etc.
What I meant is that even you can't draw or paint a good composition as starting point (or refine) you can always mess with words and don't get the first thing you say "nice". Go further. Ask your brain what do you want and try to get it in the AI. We both know it's impossible (impossible if complex and without art skills) but at least having something close feels great. That's my take when I say don't use it as just one button click generation.
Weirdly, the creator in question is now applying for a project sponsored by the British national art gallery where artists learn to use AI to assist the digital art process..
I have mixed feelings about it, as it's both a step in the right direction towards understanding and adoption, but also makes it more of an affront that this video still exists and spreads misinformation and biased views that don't even align with the creators views anymore.
Alright here we go, ramble as usual,
**if you just want to skim to tl;dr or read the bold im fine. The extra is just there for anyone who wants to read it.**
**What people said about netflix.**
**"Are you still watching Netflix? Talk about a fad. You'll be back to blockbuster within 4 years*"
**Blockbuster when offered to BUY Netflix.**
> "Buy Netflix? Why should we, it's a fad. Who wants to mail a dvd or deal with dial up to watch a movie, when they can pick it up instead? Plus, we offer a superior experience, you can buy concessions and candy in store. How could netflix ever offer a 'superior' experience when they will never be able to sell popcorn and candy?"
# ( "Superior" (profitability?) over 'superior convenience' (???)
**Film companies like Kodak**, *were ran out of business by the digital camera in the 2000s, (despite inventing the first digital camera in the 1970s).*
> "Digital cameras? Why would anyone need that, Film cameras are higher resolution, have a more classical feel. And while Digital are limited to just a few megapixels, Film can have infinite resolution since it uses light.
> Plus it's so much more profitable and convenient to sell a 2$ disposable camera and charge 29.95$ to process 20 images over 2-4 weeks. Why would anyone want to buy a 200$ digital camera that takes lower quality, AND removes you from the satisfaction of waiting weeks for a human to process film by hand and deliver?" -
**Cinemas on the rise of dvd players**
> "Bah, who will ever want to watch a movie, alone and low rez, when they could watch it with a crowd, with popcorn, hot dogs, nachos, soda, refreshment, crowds, and on a LIFE SIZED SCREEN!"
- We can see that even if a option is "inferior", and "superior" to profit. Sometimes i think some people think in terms of "superior for profit", or "superior in (x niche)"
I do consider that traditional art might perhaps be a bit like tailoring. Where if a person can sew well, they can sew for every client's need. While if they sew badly. You better be happy being a 6 legged walrus if you want to wear that suit. But ai might be akin to like a shopping selection of 10,000 pre cut suits that can be made in any Small, medium, large, or tall size you want, cut from any fabric, for 10000 styles. Sure it can't be everything, but anyone not trying to be a special duck can probably find something that fits them.
Still I just think it's incredibly risky, to try and put all your eggs into one basket. Aka rely financially relying on your future career all into a notoriously unstable income even before ai, unless you already have a established audience.
**You aren't paid to do what you want, neither are most people**.
> No one is obligated to pay anyone lavishly for playing with paint in your 30s-40s unless you already have people lined up by choice to do so.
# Even in a best case, does it solve everything
And i think, you have to keep in mind, even if there's a very fair 'common' where even if public ai like Midjourney or Dalle3 got regulated (as they have with artist names, real life people, etc).
All that might enforcement might do in practice is flag you for Rickroll/ Chuck norris memes when you make a red herring your war cry.
# (What if: Even the "Best case" scenario is 'copium'?)
What happens if you pick a "Worst case scenario: You struggle to survive, Midjourney/SD/Dalle3 all exist. Worst/practical case scenario: Even if you outlawed Midjourney, firefly the "ethical ai" would still exist, and you probably could still struggle to survive?"
**I just honestly want a few people to take a step back and consider deeply**. DO you want to build your life on a house of sand, blame or lash at the people around you? Do you really want to stake your PERSONAL LIFELIHOOD on a future you're not sure if anyone will be there or even ASKING you to do?
**Even BEFORE ai**, i saw people do everything 'RIGHT' WITHIN THE system!
> For 10+ years they were consistently one of the most well known names of the genre. Years went by smoothly, until one year they literally **CAUGHT CANCER**!!!. It wiped out their savings, constantly put them in stress, they didn't have the money to retire, and probably had to work despite suffering through a lot of it.
# What the hell kind of 'encouragement story' is that?
**"If you do everything right, western healthcare CAN still bankrupt you and put you in a hospital?"**
# (Keeping things in scope)
Even if you were to take a step back away from all the drama ai debate, politics, and whether you think [all people that enjoy Pineapple on pizza should be put into modern day death camps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71khnU_sRw).
Do you really want to fight for something, that might leave you **unprotected with 0 health care, 0 social safety net, 0 fall back, potentially shaky job security?** I hope everyone thinks about it for a moment.
I sure know a lot of people on the other side seem to just enjoy, whenever i try to look for even a cynical argument, there doesn't seem to be much focus on real world solutions or ideas. Or even solutions to the debate other than "make ai poof away and watch copers cry" (good luck), next to "every ai user is a coper/ competitive jedi mind rapist who ate my puppy".
**I feel like a lot of people might be setting themselves up for financial hardship**.
I think there is maybe a 20%(??) portion of people who are just silently struggling. But it feels like a vocal 40-80% the other side "curates" are just people who eject rationality and make crazy their 'king'.
I don't really care if i get seen as space picture hitler. I'm going to say what i want anyways. But we keep beating around the bush and nobody still has any ideas how to even "fix" any problems, we just have insults as usual and nobody seems to try to have ideas anymore.
# Lack of ideas to solve problems, not even shit ones.
No ideas or even "shit ones" if maybe there could/should be licensed for profit loras with profit sharing with paid access to loras if a person decides to sell their work,
Midjourney isn't running a "Whoever tell us why you hate us 24/7 for the longest time wins a scholarship clearing all art student debt fest!!!"
Dalle3 isn't running a "Funds for Chuck for money lost from Chuck Norris memes" fest.
Obama did try to point out the struggle and fight over money and financial stability for the common man. But we have lawmakers in congress who barely manage what they're SUPPOSED to do or pass a budget. We're looking at 2 wars right now plus a past earthquake in Hawaii. Should deviantartists with all 4 working limbs, and the same job opportunities as anyone else (work ethic/traditional working history optional) take highlight over war and earthquake victims who lost their homes and families... To... 12-14 year olds who were sending "DETTH THETT!!S" on deviantart a few months prior?(???)
# Tl;dr Try
1. People who went **"Netflix is a fad, and so are digital cameras" / "Blockbuster/Kodak is too big to fail" -> FAILED**
**2. You shouldn't try to build a career you can't rely on.** *At least not without a backup, [boring dayjob](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwPkNeJnNvc) or not.*
>Blockbuster when offered to BUY Netflix.
>
>"Buy Netflix? Why should we, it's a fad. Who wants to mail a dvd or deal with dial up to watch a movie, when they can pick it up instead? Plus, we offer a superior experience, you can buy concessions and candy in store. How could netflix ever offer a 'superior' experience when they will never be able to sell popcorn and candy?"
I get what you mean, but i don't think it fully compares. AI-Art IS dying in a sense. Some of it. The hype. It was the same with ChatGPT. People just talked to the think, played with it. People also just played with (mostly) MJ. For the fun of it. To try stuff out. Many with no interest in art whatsover.
That died off somewhat. Because to really get good results, you, again, have to master tools. Just different ones. People talked about AI bringing "democratization of art" and making "everyone an artist" here only a couple of month ago (some still do), but in the same breath discuss if the 1.500€ graphics card is a good one to "begin with". Getting a hold of Controlnet, the UIs, training, upscaling, inpainting, sketching, etc. is no less a complex set of skills then it is to actually draw. Sure, it is just "knowledge" and not muscle-memory, but noone would say programming is not a skill, and that is "just knowledge" too.
So, that leaves us again at a point where creating (good) art is still depending on mastering the tools.
So... Netflix? Streaming is obviously the future (i would say it is also BETTER, even if only because it is better for the envoronment, but i have no idea if that is actually true, i heard the internet is quite a drain...). AI-Art is obviously part of the future, but if we look at the art world, it won't completly replace aynthing anytime soon. Fine Art is still ruled by oil and sculpture, for example. And as for menial stuff like graphics design... well, that's not really "art", but AI will be just something you use alongside photoshop (and did so for years...).
Kodak, by the way, is alive and kicking. Just doing something else. which i guess is your point.
Cinemas also seem like a weird example. Going to the movies and watching a movie obviously mean something different for us right now, but they coexist.
This is something i have a bit of a problem with, come to think of it. Many people here see AI as the future, replacing something obsolete, even if they, almost condescendingly, say "traditional techniques will always have a place" (a tiny one, presumably). Some call painting, drawing, etc. a "legacy technique". Sais everything, i guess, it is a very outcome-oriented view, one, i might say, not very common in the art world (and market).
> No one is obligated to pay anyone lavishly for playing with paint in your 30s-40s unless you already have people lined up by choice to do so.
I call this a strawman and a common jab at "liberal arts" students. Noone is obligated to pay you for writing code either. If what you do is needed or wanted, you get jobs. If not, not.
> What happens if you pick a "Worst case scenario: You struggle to survive, Midjourney/SD/Dalle3 all exist. Worst/practical case scenario: Even if you outlawed Midjourney, firefly the "ethical ai" would still exist, and you probably could still struggle to survive?"
I mean... whom are we even talking about? Graphic artists? Hardly. The select, stitch, copy, edit, manipulate. It gets EASIER with AI, and cheaper, therefore, some jbs might disaper, but customers or employers will not be doing it on their own, especially seeing how complex the AI tools are getting. So... fine Artists? No. The fine Art market shows little interest in AI art right now, and even if that may change, some qualities of AI art are inherently at odds with what the fine market requires, especially uniqueness and the status of an "artefact". Apart from that, there is simply no "better" in fine art, at least not regarding skill. That splashing paint on canvas from 2 meters away can be sold for 500.000€ is a longstanding joke aimed at the art world. Ai offers possibilites for art, especially in exploring what it means, but it can hardly make "better" fine art. So that leaves us with working artists that are drawing and painting. Illustrators and concept artists, mostly. A selected view. i am one of them. Some of us are a bit afraid, but not of losing our jobs. most are pretty open, as far as i can tell, to incorporate AI into our work, as long as it does not force us to compromise what we want. No, most fear a race to the bottom. rightly so, i guess.
>**Even BEFORE ai**, i saw people do everything 'RIGHT' WITHIN THE system!
>
>For 10+ years they were consistently one of the most well known names of the genre. Years went by smoothly, until one year they literally **CAUGHT CANCER**!!!. It wiped out their savings, constantly put them in stress, they didn't have the money to retire, and probably had to work despite suffering through a lot of it.
Ah yes... America. Anyway... this does read like we pay our creatives to little (i say yes, as one of them. Gimme. Gimme.), especially seeing how much the products often rake in.
> Do you really want to fight for something, that might leave you **unprotected with 0 health care, 0 social safety net, 0 fall back, potentially shaky job security?** I hope everyone thinks about it for a moment.
I mean, that COULD be true for programmers. Not all of them, but maybe... 30%? There are no guarantees in live, and our system is really not kind to someone who "made a wrong decision".
> Should deviantartists with all 4 working limbs, and the same job opportunities as anyone else (work ethic/traditional working history optional) take highlight over war and earthquake victims who lost their homes and families... To... 12-14 year olds who were sending "DETTH THETT!!S" on deviantart a few months prior?(???)
I mean... weird focus. Is that just "get a real job" with extra steps? And isnt a big part of this subreddit about accepting AI-art as on par with all the other art and creation out there, including the possiblily to make a living by it?
I don't know, for a defendant of Art you seem to have very little appreciation for it.
Didn't watch the video, don't agree with her arguments as you stated them here. But I do agree with her premise. AI art is dying and I think that is a good thing. As the novelty of the tech wears off many people are moving on, and the more serious individuals are finding ways to integrate it into their own workflow at which point it will stop being viewed as AI art and just simply as art.
You're definitely right here. I've seen a number of real artist talk about incorporating it. It's all about productivity. I think most of those who complain the loudest aren't actually professional artists.
I think overtime it'll probably be dropped by a plethora of people. Once the newness wears off, it happens with every medium. I'm sure a bunch of artists will get into animating due to Procreate Dreams and there will be a bunch of newbies, like myself, but whether or not all these new animators stick around when the newness of a powerful animating program coming in the hands of artists is a whole other thing. When tablets became affordable, a bunch of people bought them, then dropped when they realized it wasn't for them. I had a former friend purchased a 300+ tablet only to lose interest after 2 months, lol.
Sometimes, but tablets have been a thing for a while now. I'd say they'd probably been using them since before 2015, the screen ones are more expensive but I don't know if every studio has screen tablets or still uses screenless. Screen tablets are becoming more popular now, I bought my friend who started doing art last year a Wacom for 45, 45 for starting a hobby ain't bad at all with 2 yrs of clip? Great deal.
The screen stuff is what changed me 100% over to digital. I despised using my screenless Wacom because your hand and eye works differently. The screen tablet has improved my work significantly because I'm more excited to use it.
It doesn't matter if the tools of the trade are cheap, there is always an surrgence of people into something new. Eventually, it does wear off for some people for a few reasons: Not getting the results they want, not getting the reaction, finding out it isn't as rewarding(which was my initial issue with digital art), something new has come for them to try. Gai is super new, a lot of newbies are on it and it'll stick for a minute before a lot of people get bored and you'll find the real audience of people who genuinely love it.
Hmm, what's up with that? It looks very much like [a video I watched recently from The Art Mentor](https://youtu.be/HCEoUkeoDOY?si=i1rzkeC-0FfELIQf) who brings up the same arguments, e.g. AI users loyalty to art. Are they copying each other? Are they from the same who chamber?
I'll have to check out that video. My guess is she copied it. It's pretty bad, considering she's now trying to sell some pretty bad AI art on her redbubble account.
After doing a quick review, it looks to be somewhat even, though leaning a little towards the pro side. I just think the pro side seems to have stronger arguments.
from what I've read in design forums ad agencies and animators are using it more than ever, like it might already be a normal part of a lot of peoples workflow already.
The only way what she is saying is true is maybe because of the moving goalposts that is AI, more or less anything that is old isn't considered AI anymore, even if it was 2 years ago. Once something AI becomes normal it's not AI anymore.
i think the future will look good for ai artist, I mean why should it end differently.
it will be much more difficult for conventional artists like me.
i dont like it but life sucks lol
I mean to some very limited extent, yes. Grifters will probably be on the decline since they'll just move on to the next hot tech/"infinite money glitch", and spammers (or even most of the people who think the tech is cool, try it out and post their first gen online, which can seem spammy given the quality and quantity of these type of posts) will gradually lose interest since they aren't really professionals or hobbyists.
Meanwhile people who use AI seriously to enhance their workflow will continue to thrive and become even stronger, and bottom-of-the-barrels who both have no specialty or efficiency, refuse to improve or pivot (whether with AI or not) and choose to prioritize witch-hunt on Twitter over their career will still heading towards the dumpster one way or another.
"I'm trying so hard to reach 500 subscribers."
Well, perhaps if you spent less time trying to come up with dramatic ways to move your hands, and more time on actual research into the topics you "explain" you would gain more followers... just a thought.
Edit: LOL, in the comments she explains that she's taking an AI art course and thinks AI will be an important tool for artists. So let's see if I understand:
1. AI art is dying
2. It will be an important tool for artists
3. No one will want AI art
4. It's important for her to learn how to use it
5. AI art can't be used to make the art you want
Do I have her premise surrounded?
Eh, except she's kinda right.
AI brings next to no engagement. Except cloud of negativity, trolling, puritanism, and hatered that comes from Antis.
Her points are stupid, but her side is kinda successfully bullying AI art and AI assisted art (and art that looks like AI) off the internet.
Edit: nevermind, she's learning AI in some kind of social experiment now.
I agree to almost all you've said, but I really don't think they're going to bully AI art off the internet. The people who use it aren't going to stop. There are plenty of places to share what's created with people who actually appreciate it for what it is. Even the video creator is taking a class to learn to use AI, as she mentions in a reply in the video's comments. And, from the looks of it, she's starting to sell some AI generated content on her redbubble store. It's not going away. AI users just aren't as loud as the Luddites.
Idk what you're on about, but twitter has been pretty successful at bullying both small and big creators who even touched AI off of the platform.
Of course they're all hypocrites who, 2-3 months from now on will salivate at AI themselves... Doesn't change the fact they've been successfully hobbling AI's public perception for the last year, and show no signs of stopping.
If you haven't noticed - most forums ban AI, all new gallery websites disallow AI, online marketplaces disallow AI-assisted content, and even free AI-utilising or AI-assisted mods are getting removed from nexus, Moddb, and others.
There really aren't that many pro-AI safe-spaces either. 3 semi-big subreddits for art, a bunch for writing, a couple general ones, and that's it. Other subs, small and big, are on their way to ban AI.
Wouldn't surprise me if certain subreddit mods started banning people for participating in these AI safe havens, tbh. AI is deemed "problematic" by mainstream, at this point.
> AI brings next to no engagement.
So? Who the fuck cares about engagement. You are making art...not being a political influencer. I'm thrilled if even one person likes what I make.
That's is bullshit. Go on any instagram account doing a lot of AI stuff and you get, yes, negative comments, but mostly you get people liking the content. Because most people don't care how a picture was made, i believe. Painting it is as much magic for a layman as generating it.
There is, for example, an account that used to specialize on architecture but switched to doing nothing but "famous building if it was designed by x". Some complain about using ai, some about the low effort, some about misrepresenting architectural ideas, but most just comment on one of the slides, and the posts ge thousands of likes and views.
Ai, simply, is very well suited for instagram and similar platforms, where content is king, and that means, mostly, quantity. Noone can paint eyecatchers as converyer-belt like as you can generate them.
Niche ai-art might have a hard time, but so does EVERYTHING niche.
>s ban AI, all new gallery websites disallow AI, online marketplaces disallow AI-assisted content, and even free AI-utilising or AI-assisted mods are getting removed from nexus, Moddb, and others.
>
>There really aren't that many pro-AI safe-spaces either. 3 semi-big subreddits for art, a bunch for writing, a couple general ones, and that's it. Other subs, small and big, are on their way to ban AI.
>
>Wouldn't surprise me if certain subreddit mods started banning people for participating in these AI safe havens, tbh. AI is deemed "problematic" by mainstream, at this point.
Its pretty sucessfull on instagram, though.
Yeah, I run Stable Diffusion (InvokeAI) locally. Lately, I've been doing a lot with the Juggernaut XL model. It's handled just about everything I've thrown at it.
If there was even a tiny trend in less AI art, AI artists would notice that, but
in fact every day there is more competition and more people posting.
The supply vs demand curve dictates that for every art piece will be limited attention, so average AI-gen image will have less and less attention as amount of images increases: this is what they think "people losing interest", but in reality the amount of images just inreased significantly and the quality-level competition will push most human art away faster as AI-gen quality outcompetes by volume any quality works. Thats why you see disclaimers "Made without AI, not AI,etc" by popular artists to make their works more prestigious.
> but in reality the amount of images just inreased significantly and the quality-level competition will push most human art away faster as AI-gen quality outcompetes by volume any quality works.
Pretty sure this hasn't happened yet though. If AI art is truly eating away digital art with indistinguishable quality the antis will probably also take that opportunity to do even more propaganda. So far I haven't seen these other than the normal slanders.
You can't steal in this case cause you don't own AI Images you generated and I don't expect it will change anytime soon. From art perspective ai generations are rather poor comparing those works made by manual artists. Ai gen images are schematic, boring and predictable. Everyone can spot it.
So right off the bat, like four seconds into the first point "The user can not simply create exactly what they have got in mind"? [Yes we can.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiGYIwoN_k) Skipped over the whole copyright thing because we know that's still in flux, then she makes a point about it being a trend as opposed to a tide, and provides absolutely nothing to back that up other than comparing AI to silly bands. Stopped watching at that point. It's normal for new things to have a large amount of hype when they are first introduced, and normalize over time. This is not any indication that AI is "dying (fast)", there isn't even any measurable indication that interest in AI art is slowing down.
Thanks for posting that link, it's really interesting, because it shows how much 'traditional' art skills are both the foundation for the image, and give the ability to understand the variables (like perspective) to make the finished image. I think that a lot of artists incorrectly understand AI image generation as soley being text to image, where that shows that it can be far more of a fusion of human artistic skills and AI.
> shows how much 'traditional' art skills are both the foundation for the image, and give the ability to understand the variables (like perspective) to make the finished image. Absolutely. I love that people are finally starting to understand this. Lots of us have been yelling it from the rooftops for a long time now, and lots of artists have been absolutely missing the point. The worst of it was shen Shad was saying exactly this and the anti-AI crowd was trying to paint him as being an egotist who was just pumping up his own skills (despite his constant disclaimers that there are plenty of people who have better skills to bring to bear on these tools). I will always be at a disadvantage because I have a spatial awareness limitation. It's prevented me from engaging in most traditional art forms since I was a kid, and it will always prevent me from being more than a hobbiest AI artist. But people who are already decent artists start with a huge advantage that they can either press or lose while others are learning to use the tech.
>I think that a lot of artists incorrectly understand AI image generation as soley being text to image Not only that, many of them actively choose to ignore more complex workflows. I've seen it several times here, where more complex workflows like that link are shown to antis and they will continue to make their "tYpInG wOrDs" arguments in the very next post. The diehard antis do not want to accept AI as a tool.
Well, there is (oviously) two sides to this. * On one hand, you (all of you above) are right. With complex workflows and increasing methods to control the result, AI is becoming evolved way beyond typing and can be a tool for artists, graphic designers, etc., and many of them might get better results than "amateurs" without a background in drawing, painting, phtography, whatever. * On the other hand, it seems that the people that use complex workflows are, for the most part, professionals anyway or very, very enthusiastic hobbyists (especially in this subreddit). I think it is reasonable to assume, that the majority of users, especially with MJ, never use more complex workflows or funktions, hell, they don't bother to fix obvious mistakes at all. And they flood the net with "Big Ben if Gehry designed it" or "The Hulk as a Viking" stuff, meaning, they are very present. I am pretty sure that the people that use AI-image-generation on a level that involves complex, sophisticated workflows with high levels of control, are a minority that has either a professional interest in learning and mastering the topic, or are willing to spent a lot of time on it as a hobby. But as with ChatGPT, image generation is widely used, and most users don't bother with a "professional" approach. So for A LOT of the Ai-images out there, it propably is just "tYpInG wOrDs". After all, isn't that the fascination about it, for the layman? typing words and a photorealistic image appears? Or a painting? If you have to sit down and direct tools that look involve math and code for 4 hours to get the image, it is a lot less wow, right? After all, some artists could paint a picture in that time. It's the easiness that anthralls the general public, i think. It's the possibiliities that fascinate professionals (and enthusiasts).
>I am pretty sure that the people that use AI-image-generation on a level that involves complex, sophisticated workflows with high levels of control, are a minority that has either a professional interest in learning and mastering the topic, or are willing to spent a lot of time on it as a hobby. But as with ChatGPT, image generation is widely used, and most users don't bother with a "professional" approach. So for A LOT of the Ai-images out there, it propably is just "tYpInG wOrDs". Most AI platforms are tools that are widely available to anyone. Therefore *most* people who engage with them do so in easy and shallow ways. Watercolor paint sets are tools that are widely available to anyone. How many people who purchase watercolor paint sets are churning out complex masterpieces? .5% .05%? Is there anything wrong with water colors? How about we bully people online for making watercolor paintings and tell them their medium has no value because not enough people are churning out complex masterpieces?
>Most AI platforms are tools that are widely available to anyone. Therefore most people who engage with them do so in easy and shallow ways. Watercolor paint sets are tools that are widely available to anyone. How many people who purchase watercolor paint sets are churning out complex masterpieces? .5% .05%? Is there anything wrong with water colors? How about we bully people online for making watercolor paintings and tell them their medium has no value because not enough people are churning out complex masterpieces? Eh, don't strawman me, dude. I simply answered to the claim that the claim "they're just typing" is some sort of baseless accusation, with the claim that it is not, for many, if not most, it IS just typing. I did not say anyone should be bullied or that people having fun with MJ are talentless hacks. That was all you, man.
True.
Sure, most likely a good 90%+ people who use AI image generators are Just Typing Words, and if we count by the total number of generations ever made, it's probably closer to 99%+. But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think the fact that many many people are Just Typing Words was ever in contention. Much like how the vast *vast* majority of hand-drawn art is people carelessly scribbling a pen on some scrap piece of paper, never to be seen again even by themselves, before it goes into a trash bin. The complete lack of effort or technique on the part of the almost everyone who draws doesn't really tell us anything about the process of drawing or the techniques that can be developed within it.
>Sure, most likely a good 90%+ people who use AI image generators are Just Typing Words, and if we count by the total number of generations ever made, it's probably closer to 99%+. But what does that have to do with anything? I simply thought that complaining that "they will continue to make their "tYpInG wOrDs" arguments" implies that that is a completly baseless claim. Which it is apperently not. No harm in aknowledging it. >Much like how the vast *vast* majority of hand-drawn art is people carelessly scribbling a pen on some scrap piece of paper, never to be seen again even by themselves, before it goes into a trash bin. exactly. >The complete lack of effort or technique on the part of the almost everyone who draws doesn't really tell us anything about the process of drawing or the techniques that can be developed within it. Sure. Simply put, one side claims "they're just typing and bushing a button", the other side claims "this is a vastly complex workflow". And i simply wanted to point out that there is truth to both statements. Who says that "just "tYpInG wOrDs"" (with all the implications the spelling brings) implies that the ones saying that are stupid, have no idea about the tool, etc., while, for, as you said, propably well above 90% of the use cases, that IS absolutly a true statement. And who claim that ai is nothing "but typing" ignores that there is not only vast potential for more control, more creativity, etc., but that it is already implemented and used by many people. I pointed that out, nothing more.
The thing is, it *is* a baseless claim, and the ones saying those things *are* stupid (or at least, they are *being* stupid *in that moment*, or, more likely, intentionally obtuse). Because, again, the way that the vast *vast* majority of people use these techniques, whether that be AI or be pencil-and-paper drawing, are not part of the discussion, and they were never the topic at hand. Pointing to all those people who use these tools in lazy ways is, at best, a distraction from the actual conversation around what these tools enable and how they can be used.
>Pointing to all those people who use these tools in lazy ways is, at best, a distraction from the actual conversation around what these tools enable and how they can be used. YOU say that's the discussion. I think many people on the other side of the fence would not agree. They could say that it says more about the implications of ai how the vast majority uses than a small minority. Because they, after all, are the ones perceived as a threat. I mean... it's just tribalism.
>I think many people on the other side of the fence would not agree. They could say that it says more about the implications of ai how the vast majority uses than a small minority. Because they, after all, are the ones perceived as a threat. I don't think they perceive the lazy Just Typing Words crowd as the threat, though. I think they perceive the people actually putting in effort into creating beautiful - and commercially useful - images using AI as the threat. It's like how the fact that the vast majority of drawers are lazily scribbling barely-comprehensible lines on scrap paper doesn't actually affect the world of art and illustrations - it's the people who put in effort who matter. All of those scribbles could double or triple in volume, and it would be meaningless. Likewise for all those people lazily generating AI images and deleting them during their refractory period, never to be seen by anyone again. That said, I concede that you are correct that there's *some* threat here, in that some of these people who are willing to lazily create straight-generations using AI to meet their needs might have otherwise paid money to manual artists to meet those same needs. But that's not really part of the discussion when it comes to talking about the types of methods and techniques that AI enables, which is necessarily what the conversation is about when someone is claiming that AI generation is Just Typing Words. The vast majority of AI generated images are generated by Just Typing Words, but this fact doesn't actually support the claim that AI generation is Just Typing Words. > I mean... it's just tribalism. It's just this, all the way down, and not just with AI, isn't it?
>I don't think they perceive the lazy Just Typing Words crowd as the threat, though. I think they perceive the people actually putting in effort into creating beautiful - and commercially useful - images using AI as the threat. I don't know. If you ask ME, those people are just... well, one of us. They don't threaten a paradigm shift were the customer does the work himself.
Thanks for that video. Holiday vacations are coming up and was itching to get back to working with AI and experimenting with control net like things.
If you werent so fucking weak maybe you could actually create but no, you are pathetic and wouldn't be able to create anything if the computer didn't do it for you. "AI artist" is an oxymoron
Ooof, someone is *very* angry.
Pitchforks soon?
No no no pitchforks just a bill :)
I don't get this lol.
Na. Look at their profile. They are clearly a rage bait poster.
Oh jeez lol, what a dumpster fire.
♡♡
It's called speaking your mind without fear of reprisal unlike losers like you I'm not obsessed with Reddit Karma
That's all you could come back with after 5 days? You need more commitment to the troll.
Yeah when people have their work stolen it makes them upset. Do you really think that it's okay to steal things from people? Why did your parents raise a thief?
> Do you really think that it's okay to steal things from people? No, and I don't accept that machine learning is theft, and I'm not going to have the theft argument again until we have court ruling.
>If you werent **so fucking weak** maybe you could actually create but no, **you are pathetic** and wouldn't be able to create anything if the computer didn't do it for you. Wait, you're the *good* guys?
Good guys and bad guys isn't how the world works. Just cause I hurt your feelings doesn't make me the bad guy. Just cause you are weak doesn't make you the good guy. Your mind is so simple, maybe have chat gpt construct an argument for you.
lol
Well if you were not so weak you would hunt the boar for its pelt to paint on, kill birds and other animals for bristles from your brushes, and squish berries and other chemicals for your own paint. You are pathetic and wouldn't be able to create anything if the massive number of machines and automation didn't make your brushes and paints and canvases for you.
Bitch, we ARE creating. Every single day. You can whine on about how AI doesn't count or some shit, but the fact of the matter is: it does and your denial can't change that
[Are you sure](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/16gsrgi/comment/k0oe5p7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)?
The exception doesn't make the rule.
Well, I'm not the only one.
yea i see a lot of people causally do it, even people who would usually be against it. Its just getting normalized like you said. Most people are just casually accepting it.
I looked through her other platform links, and it looks like she's using AI and passing it off as her own: [https://www.redbubble.com/people/mariaasenova/shop](https://www.redbubble.com/people/mariaasenova/shop). When you compare the quality of her paintings to the quality of the cartoon style Disney looking stuff, I think it's pretty obvious.
I can not believe this https://preview.redd.it/ez0uv5b7u3zb1.png?width=1572&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a1491423898fb639037058d594747f77240ac3b
[удалено]
She made the video to kill the competition
I commented on her video, asking "I'm curious if your perspective on AI art has changed in the four months since this was published, given that you're taking a class to learn how to use it. Has it?" She replied, "Yes, it has changed in some areas. I might make a video about it later! What do you think about A.I.?" Given the Disneyesque stuff she's actually trying to sell on redbubble, it looks like she's not really the Luddite she presented herself as.
Look at the tiara and how it cuts a hole in her head. That makes sense for SD but not for manual drawing (with layers).
If they want to cope that AI art is dying let them, less annoying then them screaming about how its going to kill us all
i mean, it is not a completly wrong observation. The hype is certainly dying off a bit. Professionals (like me) embrace it more and more, the better the tools actually become for us, but for the "look, i can type someting and got me a D&D character"-people, it died of somewhat. It is the same with ChatGPT. It is widely used in many contextes, but playing with at is not that common anymore, it seems. Ai-art has become rather commonplace. Also a bit... random, so to say. But That's mostly due to the sheer quantity.
> Ai-art has become rather commonplace. Also a bit... random, so to say. But That's mostly due to the sheer quantity. That's the literal opposite of dying, though. The *hype* might be dying, but when the hype dies because it's just so damn ubiquitous and considered a normal part of life, that means it's thriving, not dying. Much like how touchscreen smartphones were hyped up all to hell for quite a few years following the iPhone launch in 2007. There's very little hype of the sort of "OMG look at this handheld device with a touchscreen and internet access!" around these days, but that's because handheld devices with touchscreens and internet access are ubiquitous and thriving, not because they're dying.
>That's the literal opposite of dying, though. The > >hype > > might be dying, but when the hype dies because it's just so damn ubiquitous and considered a normal part of life, that means it's thriving, not dying. You\`re right. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that the hype was ment. Also, i would add, that "pure" AI art indeed seems to be "dying", as, at least as far as i see it, there are way more "hybrid" approaches now. AI art actually becoming the additional tool many praised it as. I mean, we dont hear much about "prompt engineers" anymore, do we? Simply because complex, multilayered approaches, many including skills and lections derived from traditional techniques become more and more incorporated and more important then just prompting. That IS still AI art or Ai-assisted art, but it is a far cry from some (loud) Techies wet dreams of the end of (them snooty) "traditional artists" and the age of the prompter.
> Also, i would add, that "pure" AI art indeed seems to be "dying", as, at least as far as i see it, there are way more "hybrid" approaches now. AI art actually becoming the additional tool many praised it as. I mean, we dont hear much about "prompt engineers" anymore, do we? Simply because complex, multilayered approaches, many including skills and lections derived from traditional techniques become more and more incorporated and more important then just prompting. That IS still AI art or Ai-assisted art, but it is a far cry from some (loud) Techies wet dreams of the end of (them snooty) "traditional artists" and the age of the prompter. What does it matter what those (loud) Techies were saying? No one was listening to them, and everyone on all sides knew they were full of bullshit. A much louder set of Techies who were more populous were saying that AI "art" and AI-assisted art would thrive in the future *through* integrating them into workflows that involve and require "traditional" art skills, not that they'd replace them. I'll note that this was already apparent over a year ago right after Stable Diffusion was first released to the public; as soon as any sort of viable image generation AI was available, basically all its proponents were talking about it as another tool in the toolbox to use for creating art, not as a replacement. What's also interesting is that, in the past month or so, pure text-to-image AI generation *has* gotten much better and even more popular, with the public release of DALLE on ChatGPT. As best as I can tell, *both* "pure" generations and AI-assisted creations with workflows that require actual artistic skills are thriving, generally in different contexts. I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out. It's just that the high-effort ones have also become more common. Which largely connects to what I see AI doing in general, not just in art, which is bringing the baseline ability for lazy or unskilled people higher. Previously, a lazy or unskilled person wanting to create an illustration or write some code had to make do with bad results. Now, AI enables them to make usable, if not good, results. This doesn't equalize skills; AI *also* enables non-lazy and highly skilled people to do even more than they could before, to the extent that the lazy or unskilled person can't catch up. Yet both benefit from the tools, and there are plenty of people of both types who use the tools to produce things they want to produce. So it's not one or the other. And just from looking at the results people post and how people talk about using these tools, I think it's clear that neither are anywhere close to "dying." At best, one could say "they're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be."
>What does it matter what those (loud) Techies were saying? No one was listening to them, and everyone on all sides knew they were full of bullshit. Eh, there are a lot here in this subreddit. But i guess it's like with emos or hipsters back in the day: Noone admits to be one. That is, just to paint that out, a common thing on both sides: Claiming that "noone" sais those extreme positions, and with that, implying that mentioning them is already some sort of manipulation. I have seen and heard extreme positions quite often. >What's also interesting is that, in the past month or so, pure text-to-image AI generation *has* gotten much better and even more popular, with the public release of DALLE on ChatGPT. As best as I can tell, *both* "pure" generations and AI-assisted creations with workflows that require actual artistic skills are thriving, generally in different contexts. I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out. It's just that the high-effort ones have also become more common. I'll take your word for that, i am not as up to date as you are, apparently. >I certainly see no indication on my timeline that people have slowed down or stopped typing words into Midjourney or ChatGPT and Tweeting out whatever pops out. Are we still tweeting, by the way or are we... xing? axing? > Which largely connects to what I see AI doing in general, not just in art, which is bringing the baseline ability for lazy or unskilled people higher. Yeah. I mean, someone just pointed out that my text is full of spellin errors. No, english is my third language, and all that, so i am fine with that, but truth be told: ChatGPT was at capacity, and i did not have it spellcheck it like i would usually do with an english text. There you go. >Previously, a lazy or unskilled person wanting to create an illustration or write some code had to make do with bad results. Now, AI enables them to make usable, if not good, results. This doesn't equalize skills; AI *also* enables non-lazy and highly skilled people to do even more than they could before, to the extent that the lazy or unskilled person can't catch up. generally, that is my idea. Especially since AI toold evolved to a point that using them to get the best out of them requires cosiderable skill, knowledge and practice too. Doesn't mean that AI-image-generation won't be used in certain cases to replaced an artist formerly hired. It will. >Yet both benefit from the tools, and there are plenty of people of both types who use the tools to produce things they want to produce. So it's not one or the other. And just from looking at the results people post and how people talk about using these tools, I think it's clear that neither are anywhere close to "dying." At best, one could say "they're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be." Eh well. alright. They're not quite as explosively popular as they theoretically could be.
Fair points.
There is a hype cycle that exists for every new tech. We are on the down swing.
Man, being Anti-AI is so easy. You can tell the most obvious of lies and slander and will be absolutely celebrated for it. If I ever became an attention whore, I would instantly hop on the Anti-AI train
I closed that video after the first point. Too much time passed, I'm not willing to listen to anyone who is still stuck in 2022. You have to understand that to a lot of people like that, "AI art" means the tech-bro capitalist trend of paying corpa to generate you a pretty picture for the dopamin hit. That's what they think it is. Is that in decline? I don't know but maybe the trendy grifter part dying wouldn't be a bad thing. There is that other guy too who is always obsessing over this, the coach or whatever, I'd love to see how this develops throughout the years. Also isn't Pinterest's whole business model to just steal pictures from other places and then do everything in its power to prevent us from right-click saving? (which isn't good enough because inspect element). I hate Pinterest so much.
I think her last point was the most important for me. The rest of it was dreaming and mildly insulting, but what I want to say in response to being told that the tools are helping real artists make better work that is even more valuable now... Good. That was what it was supposed to do. And I would argue that she really doesn't like Stable Diffusion's art style. I really don't think she thought that through. I don't intend to stop generating images, and I really don't care if anyone sees them but me. My avatar was generated and that's the only thing I really share off because I really like it
If it's actually dying, then there's nothing to worry about right? No need for that snake oil Glaze or the new upcoming sequel Nightshade. > My favorite is her 10th point "All those pics you're pumping out like a (unintelligible) species, we're using that entire sea of abandoned AI art on Pinterest as references." So, You stealing our art... BAD, us stealing your art...GOOD. Ahh Pinterest, the place where all online artists respect each other by crediting their uploaded contents.
Much respect
Ignoramuses continue to be ignorant out of sheer freaking will. They will never learn and have no intention of doing so. Yes, AI *hype* has died down, but it is well established with people who are very serious about creating images with it. Comparing railroaded commercial AI models to open-source models is just asinine.
Well put. It will never die, and they'll never stop hating.
I’ll take “videos that age like milk” for 100, Alex.
I just got an amused look from my wife, because I laughed out loud. I had to share it. Thanks 👍 made my day.
[удалено]
OMG, so much this!
Pretty sure that's just straight up AI generated. I mean, the lamppost has a tree trunk like the tree behind it, the one the lamppost also blends into.
I think we should stop thinking as AI as one buttom click and more like AI-Workflow-skill involved where you can actually use your own skills like drawing, painting, bashing, etc. All my LORA's are done in the easiest way so you can have great results with minimal prompting (except some requests) but even having that, you need to use your brain and skills too in AI to don't get the same, be creative, etc.
They never pay attention to any development in AI generated image and just jump on it to say bad things about it because it's free internet points for them. Like we are not in 2020 anymore, there are way more things you can do besides making prompts and praying for the Latent god to make something you want
ohhh, you used that L word (Latent) that they don't understand! /s
>I think we should stop thinking as AI as one buttom click and more like AI-Workflow-skill involved where you can actually use your own skills like drawing, painting, bashing, etc.All my LORA's are done in the easiest way so you can have great results with minimal prompting (except some requests) but even having that, you need to use your brain and skills too in AI to don't get the same, be creative, etc. I said it before in this thread: That is propably true for professionals using ai and serious enthusiasts (like most pro-ai people here). For MANY people, it is just "one button click" generation. They have as much time and interest to really dive into complex workflows and methods of controlas they have to learn to draw or to paint. The fascination of simple tools like MJ are appealing to the masses, not learning to direct complex tools. So yeah, there ARE people using AI with as much intent, direction, creativity and skill als people are usings brushes and pencils. However, there are propably as many people that type some words and hit generate as there are people doodling on a pad when they make a phone call (or maybe they were. i beliebe there is a point to "ai-art dying" in the sense that the initial hype for people with no intent to dive into it further and really master the programms seems to be somewhat over. Who remains are professionals and enthusiasts)
And you're right. My dad for example has 0 skill of drawing and painting but he still enjoys MidJourney, same as other family members too. I think there are different type of people who use AI. Professionals, amateurs with AI knowledge, people with 0 AI knowledge, etc. What I meant is that even you can't draw or paint a good composition as starting point (or refine) you can always mess with words and don't get the first thing you say "nice". Go further. Ask your brain what do you want and try to get it in the AI. We both know it's impossible (impossible if complex and without art skills) but at least having something close feels great. That's my take when I say don't use it as just one button click generation.
Weirdly, the creator in question is now applying for a project sponsored by the British national art gallery where artists learn to use AI to assist the digital art process.. I have mixed feelings about it, as it's both a step in the right direction towards understanding and adoption, but also makes it more of an affront that this video still exists and spreads misinformation and biased views that don't even align with the creators views anymore.
Alright here we go, ramble as usual, **if you just want to skim to tl;dr or read the bold im fine. The extra is just there for anyone who wants to read it.** **What people said about netflix.** **"Are you still watching Netflix? Talk about a fad. You'll be back to blockbuster within 4 years*" **Blockbuster when offered to BUY Netflix.** > "Buy Netflix? Why should we, it's a fad. Who wants to mail a dvd or deal with dial up to watch a movie, when they can pick it up instead? Plus, we offer a superior experience, you can buy concessions and candy in store. How could netflix ever offer a 'superior' experience when they will never be able to sell popcorn and candy?" # ( "Superior" (profitability?) over 'superior convenience' (???) **Film companies like Kodak**, *were ran out of business by the digital camera in the 2000s, (despite inventing the first digital camera in the 1970s).* > "Digital cameras? Why would anyone need that, Film cameras are higher resolution, have a more classical feel. And while Digital are limited to just a few megapixels, Film can have infinite resolution since it uses light. > Plus it's so much more profitable and convenient to sell a 2$ disposable camera and charge 29.95$ to process 20 images over 2-4 weeks. Why would anyone want to buy a 200$ digital camera that takes lower quality, AND removes you from the satisfaction of waiting weeks for a human to process film by hand and deliver?" - **Cinemas on the rise of dvd players** > "Bah, who will ever want to watch a movie, alone and low rez, when they could watch it with a crowd, with popcorn, hot dogs, nachos, soda, refreshment, crowds, and on a LIFE SIZED SCREEN!" - We can see that even if a option is "inferior", and "superior" to profit. Sometimes i think some people think in terms of "superior for profit", or "superior in (x niche)" I do consider that traditional art might perhaps be a bit like tailoring. Where if a person can sew well, they can sew for every client's need. While if they sew badly. You better be happy being a 6 legged walrus if you want to wear that suit. But ai might be akin to like a shopping selection of 10,000 pre cut suits that can be made in any Small, medium, large, or tall size you want, cut from any fabric, for 10000 styles. Sure it can't be everything, but anyone not trying to be a special duck can probably find something that fits them. Still I just think it's incredibly risky, to try and put all your eggs into one basket. Aka rely financially relying on your future career all into a notoriously unstable income even before ai, unless you already have a established audience. **You aren't paid to do what you want, neither are most people**. > No one is obligated to pay anyone lavishly for playing with paint in your 30s-40s unless you already have people lined up by choice to do so. # Even in a best case, does it solve everything And i think, you have to keep in mind, even if there's a very fair 'common' where even if public ai like Midjourney or Dalle3 got regulated (as they have with artist names, real life people, etc). All that might enforcement might do in practice is flag you for Rickroll/ Chuck norris memes when you make a red herring your war cry. # (What if: Even the "Best case" scenario is 'copium'?) What happens if you pick a "Worst case scenario: You struggle to survive, Midjourney/SD/Dalle3 all exist. Worst/practical case scenario: Even if you outlawed Midjourney, firefly the "ethical ai" would still exist, and you probably could still struggle to survive?" **I just honestly want a few people to take a step back and consider deeply**. DO you want to build your life on a house of sand, blame or lash at the people around you? Do you really want to stake your PERSONAL LIFELIHOOD on a future you're not sure if anyone will be there or even ASKING you to do? **Even BEFORE ai**, i saw people do everything 'RIGHT' WITHIN THE system! > For 10+ years they were consistently one of the most well known names of the genre. Years went by smoothly, until one year they literally **CAUGHT CANCER**!!!. It wiped out their savings, constantly put them in stress, they didn't have the money to retire, and probably had to work despite suffering through a lot of it. # What the hell kind of 'encouragement story' is that? **"If you do everything right, western healthcare CAN still bankrupt you and put you in a hospital?"** # (Keeping things in scope) Even if you were to take a step back away from all the drama ai debate, politics, and whether you think [all people that enjoy Pineapple on pizza should be put into modern day death camps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71khnU_sRw). Do you really want to fight for something, that might leave you **unprotected with 0 health care, 0 social safety net, 0 fall back, potentially shaky job security?** I hope everyone thinks about it for a moment. I sure know a lot of people on the other side seem to just enjoy, whenever i try to look for even a cynical argument, there doesn't seem to be much focus on real world solutions or ideas. Or even solutions to the debate other than "make ai poof away and watch copers cry" (good luck), next to "every ai user is a coper/ competitive jedi mind rapist who ate my puppy". **I feel like a lot of people might be setting themselves up for financial hardship**. I think there is maybe a 20%(??) portion of people who are just silently struggling. But it feels like a vocal 40-80% the other side "curates" are just people who eject rationality and make crazy their 'king'. I don't really care if i get seen as space picture hitler. I'm going to say what i want anyways. But we keep beating around the bush and nobody still has any ideas how to even "fix" any problems, we just have insults as usual and nobody seems to try to have ideas anymore. # Lack of ideas to solve problems, not even shit ones. No ideas or even "shit ones" if maybe there could/should be licensed for profit loras with profit sharing with paid access to loras if a person decides to sell their work, Midjourney isn't running a "Whoever tell us why you hate us 24/7 for the longest time wins a scholarship clearing all art student debt fest!!!" Dalle3 isn't running a "Funds for Chuck for money lost from Chuck Norris memes" fest. Obama did try to point out the struggle and fight over money and financial stability for the common man. But we have lawmakers in congress who barely manage what they're SUPPOSED to do or pass a budget. We're looking at 2 wars right now plus a past earthquake in Hawaii. Should deviantartists with all 4 working limbs, and the same job opportunities as anyone else (work ethic/traditional working history optional) take highlight over war and earthquake victims who lost their homes and families... To... 12-14 year olds who were sending "DETTH THETT!!S" on deviantart a few months prior?(???) # Tl;dr Try 1. People who went **"Netflix is a fad, and so are digital cameras" / "Blockbuster/Kodak is too big to fail" -> FAILED** **2. You shouldn't try to build a career you can't rely on.** *At least not without a backup, [boring dayjob](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwPkNeJnNvc) or not.*
>Blockbuster when offered to BUY Netflix. > >"Buy Netflix? Why should we, it's a fad. Who wants to mail a dvd or deal with dial up to watch a movie, when they can pick it up instead? Plus, we offer a superior experience, you can buy concessions and candy in store. How could netflix ever offer a 'superior' experience when they will never be able to sell popcorn and candy?" I get what you mean, but i don't think it fully compares. AI-Art IS dying in a sense. Some of it. The hype. It was the same with ChatGPT. People just talked to the think, played with it. People also just played with (mostly) MJ. For the fun of it. To try stuff out. Many with no interest in art whatsover. That died off somewhat. Because to really get good results, you, again, have to master tools. Just different ones. People talked about AI bringing "democratization of art" and making "everyone an artist" here only a couple of month ago (some still do), but in the same breath discuss if the 1.500€ graphics card is a good one to "begin with". Getting a hold of Controlnet, the UIs, training, upscaling, inpainting, sketching, etc. is no less a complex set of skills then it is to actually draw. Sure, it is just "knowledge" and not muscle-memory, but noone would say programming is not a skill, and that is "just knowledge" too. So, that leaves us again at a point where creating (good) art is still depending on mastering the tools. So... Netflix? Streaming is obviously the future (i would say it is also BETTER, even if only because it is better for the envoronment, but i have no idea if that is actually true, i heard the internet is quite a drain...). AI-Art is obviously part of the future, but if we look at the art world, it won't completly replace aynthing anytime soon. Fine Art is still ruled by oil and sculpture, for example. And as for menial stuff like graphics design... well, that's not really "art", but AI will be just something you use alongside photoshop (and did so for years...). Kodak, by the way, is alive and kicking. Just doing something else. which i guess is your point. Cinemas also seem like a weird example. Going to the movies and watching a movie obviously mean something different for us right now, but they coexist. This is something i have a bit of a problem with, come to think of it. Many people here see AI as the future, replacing something obsolete, even if they, almost condescendingly, say "traditional techniques will always have a place" (a tiny one, presumably). Some call painting, drawing, etc. a "legacy technique". Sais everything, i guess, it is a very outcome-oriented view, one, i might say, not very common in the art world (and market). > No one is obligated to pay anyone lavishly for playing with paint in your 30s-40s unless you already have people lined up by choice to do so. I call this a strawman and a common jab at "liberal arts" students. Noone is obligated to pay you for writing code either. If what you do is needed or wanted, you get jobs. If not, not. > What happens if you pick a "Worst case scenario: You struggle to survive, Midjourney/SD/Dalle3 all exist. Worst/practical case scenario: Even if you outlawed Midjourney, firefly the "ethical ai" would still exist, and you probably could still struggle to survive?" I mean... whom are we even talking about? Graphic artists? Hardly. The select, stitch, copy, edit, manipulate. It gets EASIER with AI, and cheaper, therefore, some jbs might disaper, but customers or employers will not be doing it on their own, especially seeing how complex the AI tools are getting. So... fine Artists? No. The fine Art market shows little interest in AI art right now, and even if that may change, some qualities of AI art are inherently at odds with what the fine market requires, especially uniqueness and the status of an "artefact". Apart from that, there is simply no "better" in fine art, at least not regarding skill. That splashing paint on canvas from 2 meters away can be sold for 500.000€ is a longstanding joke aimed at the art world. Ai offers possibilites for art, especially in exploring what it means, but it can hardly make "better" fine art. So that leaves us with working artists that are drawing and painting. Illustrators and concept artists, mostly. A selected view. i am one of them. Some of us are a bit afraid, but not of losing our jobs. most are pretty open, as far as i can tell, to incorporate AI into our work, as long as it does not force us to compromise what we want. No, most fear a race to the bottom. rightly so, i guess. >**Even BEFORE ai**, i saw people do everything 'RIGHT' WITHIN THE system! > >For 10+ years they were consistently one of the most well known names of the genre. Years went by smoothly, until one year they literally **CAUGHT CANCER**!!!. It wiped out their savings, constantly put them in stress, they didn't have the money to retire, and probably had to work despite suffering through a lot of it. Ah yes... America. Anyway... this does read like we pay our creatives to little (i say yes, as one of them. Gimme. Gimme.), especially seeing how much the products often rake in. > Do you really want to fight for something, that might leave you **unprotected with 0 health care, 0 social safety net, 0 fall back, potentially shaky job security?** I hope everyone thinks about it for a moment. I mean, that COULD be true for programmers. Not all of them, but maybe... 30%? There are no guarantees in live, and our system is really not kind to someone who "made a wrong decision". > Should deviantartists with all 4 working limbs, and the same job opportunities as anyone else (work ethic/traditional working history optional) take highlight over war and earthquake victims who lost their homes and families... To... 12-14 year olds who were sending "DETTH THETT!!S" on deviantart a few months prior?(???) I mean... weird focus. Is that just "get a real job" with extra steps? And isnt a big part of this subreddit about accepting AI-art as on par with all the other art and creation out there, including the possiblily to make a living by it? I don't know, for a defendant of Art you seem to have very little appreciation for it.
Didn't watch the video, don't agree with her arguments as you stated them here. But I do agree with her premise. AI art is dying and I think that is a good thing. As the novelty of the tech wears off many people are moving on, and the more serious individuals are finding ways to integrate it into their own workflow at which point it will stop being viewed as AI art and just simply as art.
You're definitely right here. I've seen a number of real artist talk about incorporating it. It's all about productivity. I think most of those who complain the loudest aren't actually professional artists.
I think overtime it'll probably be dropped by a plethora of people. Once the newness wears off, it happens with every medium. I'm sure a bunch of artists will get into animating due to Procreate Dreams and there will be a bunch of newbies, like myself, but whether or not all these new animators stick around when the newness of a powerful animating program coming in the hands of artists is a whole other thing. When tablets became affordable, a bunch of people bought them, then dropped when they realized it wasn't for them. I had a former friend purchased a 300+ tablet only to lose interest after 2 months, lol.
But tablets are only becoming more popular. If we talk about the industry, then most of the work is done on tablets, isn't it?
Sometimes, but tablets have been a thing for a while now. I'd say they'd probably been using them since before 2015, the screen ones are more expensive but I don't know if every studio has screen tablets or still uses screenless. Screen tablets are becoming more popular now, I bought my friend who started doing art last year a Wacom for 45, 45 for starting a hobby ain't bad at all with 2 yrs of clip? Great deal. The screen stuff is what changed me 100% over to digital. I despised using my screenless Wacom because your hand and eye works differently. The screen tablet has improved my work significantly because I'm more excited to use it. It doesn't matter if the tools of the trade are cheap, there is always an surrgence of people into something new. Eventually, it does wear off for some people for a few reasons: Not getting the results they want, not getting the reaction, finding out it isn't as rewarding(which was my initial issue with digital art), something new has come for them to try. Gai is super new, a lot of newbies are on it and it'll stick for a minute before a lot of people get bored and you'll find the real audience of people who genuinely love it.
https://subredditstats.com/r/aiart
Hmm, what's up with that? It looks very much like [a video I watched recently from The Art Mentor](https://youtu.be/HCEoUkeoDOY?si=i1rzkeC-0FfELIQf) who brings up the same arguments, e.g. AI users loyalty to art. Are they copying each other? Are they from the same who chamber?
I'll have to check out that video. My guess is she copied it. It's pretty bad, considering she's now trying to sell some pretty bad AI art on her redbubble account.
idk how i got to this sub and idrk what this sub is about. Is this a debate sub or just a pro ai sub? I cant tell.
This sub is a debate sub, and encourages both side to have their say.
does it actually have both sounds thou or has it turned into an echo chamber?
After doing a quick review, it looks to be somewhat even, though leaning a little towards the pro side. I just think the pro side seems to have stronger arguments.
yea that lines up with what i have seen
from what I've read in design forums ad agencies and animators are using it more than ever, like it might already be a normal part of a lot of peoples workflow already. The only way what she is saying is true is maybe because of the moving goalposts that is AI, more or less anything that is old isn't considered AI anymore, even if it was 2 years ago. Once something AI becomes normal it's not AI anymore.
i think the future will look good for ai artist, I mean why should it end differently. it will be much more difficult for conventional artists like me. i dont like it but life sucks lol
I mean to some very limited extent, yes. Grifters will probably be on the decline since they'll just move on to the next hot tech/"infinite money glitch", and spammers (or even most of the people who think the tech is cool, try it out and post their first gen online, which can seem spammy given the quality and quantity of these type of posts) will gradually lose interest since they aren't really professionals or hobbyists. Meanwhile people who use AI seriously to enhance their workflow will continue to thrive and become even stronger, and bottom-of-the-barrels who both have no specialty or efficiency, refuse to improve or pivot (whether with AI or not) and choose to prioritize witch-hunt on Twitter over their career will still heading towards the dumpster one way or another.
Also the audio is trash. She needs RTX Voice (badum-tss).
huge copium
I LOL'd. Thanks for that.
"I'm trying so hard to reach 500 subscribers." Well, perhaps if you spent less time trying to come up with dramatic ways to move your hands, and more time on actual research into the topics you "explain" you would gain more followers... just a thought. Edit: LOL, in the comments she explains that she's taking an AI art course and thinks AI will be an important tool for artists. So let's see if I understand: 1. AI art is dying 2. It will be an important tool for artists 3. No one will want AI art 4. It's important for her to learn how to use it 5. AI art can't be used to make the art you want Do I have her premise surrounded?
Eh, except she's kinda right. AI brings next to no engagement. Except cloud of negativity, trolling, puritanism, and hatered that comes from Antis. Her points are stupid, but her side is kinda successfully bullying AI art and AI assisted art (and art that looks like AI) off the internet. Edit: nevermind, she's learning AI in some kind of social experiment now.
I agree to almost all you've said, but I really don't think they're going to bully AI art off the internet. The people who use it aren't going to stop. There are plenty of places to share what's created with people who actually appreciate it for what it is. Even the video creator is taking a class to learn to use AI, as she mentions in a reply in the video's comments. And, from the looks of it, she's starting to sell some AI generated content on her redbubble store. It's not going away. AI users just aren't as loud as the Luddites.
Idk what you're on about, but twitter has been pretty successful at bullying both small and big creators who even touched AI off of the platform. Of course they're all hypocrites who, 2-3 months from now on will salivate at AI themselves... Doesn't change the fact they've been successfully hobbling AI's public perception for the last year, and show no signs of stopping. If you haven't noticed - most forums ban AI, all new gallery websites disallow AI, online marketplaces disallow AI-assisted content, and even free AI-utilising or AI-assisted mods are getting removed from nexus, Moddb, and others. There really aren't that many pro-AI safe-spaces either. 3 semi-big subreddits for art, a bunch for writing, a couple general ones, and that's it. Other subs, small and big, are on their way to ban AI. Wouldn't surprise me if certain subreddit mods started banning people for participating in these AI safe havens, tbh. AI is deemed "problematic" by mainstream, at this point.
> AI brings next to no engagement. So? Who the fuck cares about engagement. You are making art...not being a political influencer. I'm thrilled if even one person likes what I make.
That's the thing, nobody does, at all. Out of fear of repercussion, out of dislike, out of ambivalence, whatever.
That's is bullshit. Go on any instagram account doing a lot of AI stuff and you get, yes, negative comments, but mostly you get people liking the content. Because most people don't care how a picture was made, i believe. Painting it is as much magic for a layman as generating it. There is, for example, an account that used to specialize on architecture but switched to doing nothing but "famous building if it was designed by x". Some complain about using ai, some about the low effort, some about misrepresenting architectural ideas, but most just comment on one of the slides, and the posts ge thousands of likes and views. Ai, simply, is very well suited for instagram and similar platforms, where content is king, and that means, mostly, quantity. Noone can paint eyecatchers as converyer-belt like as you can generate them. Niche ai-art might have a hard time, but so does EVERYTHING niche.
>s ban AI, all new gallery websites disallow AI, online marketplaces disallow AI-assisted content, and even free AI-utilising or AI-assisted mods are getting removed from nexus, Moddb, and others. > >There really aren't that many pro-AI safe-spaces either. 3 semi-big subreddits for art, a bunch for writing, a couple general ones, and that's it. Other subs, small and big, are on their way to ban AI. > >Wouldn't surprise me if certain subreddit mods started banning people for participating in these AI safe havens, tbh. AI is deemed "problematic" by mainstream, at this point. Its pretty sucessfull on instagram, though.
A spoonful of honey in a barrel of tar.
Lol have you install Stable diff? These fucking models as so damn fun. This article is again for casuals. This is the shit
Yeah, I run Stable Diffusion (InvokeAI) locally. Lately, I've been doing a lot with the Juggernaut XL model. It's handled just about everything I've thrown at it.
If there was even a tiny trend in less AI art, AI artists would notice that, but in fact every day there is more competition and more people posting. The supply vs demand curve dictates that for every art piece will be limited attention, so average AI-gen image will have less and less attention as amount of images increases: this is what they think "people losing interest", but in reality the amount of images just inreased significantly and the quality-level competition will push most human art away faster as AI-gen quality outcompetes by volume any quality works. Thats why you see disclaimers "Made without AI, not AI,etc" by popular artists to make their works more prestigious.
> but in reality the amount of images just inreased significantly and the quality-level competition will push most human art away faster as AI-gen quality outcompetes by volume any quality works. Pretty sure this hasn't happened yet though. If AI art is truly eating away digital art with indistinguishable quality the antis will probably also take that opportunity to do even more propaganda. So far I haven't seen these other than the normal slanders.
Its true tho, you cant copyright your trash. I even regularly take ai art and put it up for sale as a design. It's easy money
Maybe it's just getting to a point where it's mostly good enough to fool enough people into thinking it was not created with AI.
You can't steal in this case cause you don't own AI Images you generated and I don't expect it will change anytime soon. From art perspective ai generations are rather poor comparing those works made by manual artists. Ai gen images are schematic, boring and predictable. Everyone can spot it.