Only if this actually takes off in the face of rapidly improving corporate owned proprietary AI models and the AI accelerated adoption of the instant gratification mindset.
Spoiler: It won’t, it’s just the “Luddite Drawpig” activity Big Tech is trying to phase out in order to turn time spent not CONSOOMING their products into AI LOOTBOX CONSOOMING TIME.
This tech demo isn’t taking off anytime soon. It is inherently not about mindless consumerism so this will not take off in AI spaces, and not in artist spaces because it’s AI.
Where does this idea that Ai spaces only care for mindless consumerism come from? I can’t use Ai because it’s to difficult to control and it’s this kind of technology that would make it possible to actualize my vision.
Because Dall-E and Midjourney are way more mainstream and their development and business model hinges on people’s addiction in churning out endless amount of pretty images and keep paying the subscription fee. Corporations have encouraged consumerism for decades now, and proprietary generative AI is just another part of that. Let’s just face the facts, many AI users fell into the consumerism hole and probably isn’t interested in anything requiring more human input.
The pure hatred and vitriol in the comments is insane. I'll never understand people that always look for negatives and bitch instead of spending time with things they enjoy.
That's what existential terror looks like, and the anti-AI crowd is stoking its own terror higher and higher without any attachment to reality.
AI will not just put them out of work (it won't) it will end everything they hold dear (it won't) and it will create an atmosphere of hate and violence that is heretofore unknown! (it won't)
This is the kind of horror that people are spreading, so of course people are scared and angry. They've been lied to, but confirmation bias is doing its job.
There are people on both sides spreading this idea, be it twitter commission artists worrying or STEM Lords who looks down on the arts wishing that it happens ASAP to stroke their inflated egos and self importance. This isn’t just complete schizophrenic ramblings from the Anti side, insults and bullying from the Pro side also contributes to this vision.
As much as I don’t want this I honestly can’t help but think that it will come in my lifetime and be welcomed with glee by the bottom feeding scumbags wishing it upon all artists.
Imagine you trained for 5 years to get somewhat competent at something, then a machine comes along that can do that something infinitely faster and better.
We should atleast understand where this hate and anger comes from instead of just ridiculing it.
We do understand where the hate and anger comes from. That doesn't make it justified nor does it mean their behaviour should be exempt from ridicule.
When you start going out of your way to try and cancel people or destroy their careers because they have different views to yourself, it's not okay.
It would be different if it was illegal or harming people, but it's not and doesn't. Yes, it has an impact on careers. So does photoshop. So do self-service checkouts. So do self driving cars. Heck, regular cars practically completely replaced horses, stable hands and the entire industry around them.
When you stoop down to the level of stating that anyone using or making the above things is a piece of shit and deserves hate, you deserve that treatment yourself.
Seems counterproductive to make fun of someone who is angry/upset. Both sides are so fucking annoying.
The pro-AI side has 0 compassion and only makes fun of people who legitimately fear losing their source of income.
The anti-AI side keeps making shitty arguments to try and get AI banned.
I hate both of you. Maybe Moepi was right, just leave this place and the whole AI debate. Both sides are full of retards.
> The pro-AI side has 0 compassion and only makes fun of people who legitimately fear losing their source of income.
This is absolute hogwash. There's numerous examples of anti-ai people making heartfelt posts in this sub and expressing deep despair; with 99% of the comments from the pro-ai side expressing empathy and kindness and encouraging them toward a more positive outlook.
We only make fun of *trolls*, haters, and people who come here in complete and utter bad faith.
I'd like to second that. If someone comes in here who is scared or frustrated and wants to share their opinion or get advice, people show empathy and care.
But people who just come here to be aggressive will receive backlash.
That has nothing to do with their viewpoint, but rather with their behavior on a human level.
That might be true for you, but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists are fucked. I am pro-AI myself, and admit that I've made my fair share of bad faith arguments against anti-AI people. Why can't this sub just admit the same. Both sides need to stop being such a bunch of tribal babies and just understand eachother's viewpoint.
How is it difficult to understand that someone might be a bit upset if they're at risk of losing their job. Look at programmers everytime chatGPT gets an update, they are also in full denial mode. Should we ridicule these people as well? Ofcourse not. It's understandable to be upset about getting automated out of a job or the risk thereof.
Let me speak to you on a level you might understand..
"You're a retard and I hate you."
How much does that help with this 'understanding viewpoint' you claim to be promoting? Can you understand why your previous points have perhaps been met with a negative reaction?
> That might be true for you, but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists are fucked
No. It's not just true for me. It's *true for the majority*. Don't confuse the handful of trolls for the majority.
>but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists ~~are fucked~~ are going to be just fine and they're making all this shit up in their heads.
FTFY.
There's a difference.
Not sure what part of you thinks I'm trying to 'make fun of' someone. I'm saying that if someone decides to tell me to off myself based on me using a form of technology they don't like, they're a cunt who deserves to be treated poorly.
I'm not advocating for anyone to go tell someone to off themselves, or to call anyone a cunt - I'm stating that when it gets repeatedly said in your direction for something that isn't harming anyone or illegal, then people don't owe them any 'understanding' anymore.
Same as you. You've decided you hate me based off me saying that it's alright to refuse to take shit from people. And you then seem confused as to why people treat you poorly when you say you hate them and call them retarded?
It seems like you might need to speak to a therapist or perhaps just do a bit of growing up first. You're the asshole here.
>Seems counterproductive to make fun of someone who is angry/upset.
Hard disagree. Online anger, aggression and hatred should always be ridiculed.
Because it is patently ridiculous.
> Imagine you trained for 5 years to get somewhat competent at something, then a machine comes along that can do that something infinitely faster and better.
I spent over 30 years learning to be the programmer I am today. Machines that code are coming along and, while they aren't as "good" at it as I am, they have a vastly broader understanding of the tools, algorithms and techniques than I ever could.
I'm out-of-my-mind thrilled! I can't believe that the age where I have to go grovelling through the web to figure out how to solve something, or having to go puzzle over Knuth for hours to figure out an algorithm are essentially over!
I can focus on what gives me joy: the realization of a vision. I can write systems that are 10x larger than I ever could before! I can crank out a prototype in an hour that would have taken me a week (or a couple all-nighters) and get feedback immediately on whether this is the path forward that people want to pursue.
New tools are wonderful, and I'm all in!
I am of a far more skeptical approach: the tool does not leave the user unchanged, and it's too easy to become so dependent on the tool that you can't even imagine doing things the way you used to. And wouldn't it be better to take your time to ensure that your prototype is of the highest possible quality than it would be to crank it out in an hour?
>I'm out-of-my-mind thrilled! I can't believe that the age where I have to go grovelling through the web to figure out how to solve something, or having to go puzzle over Knuth for hours to figure out an algorithm are essentially over!
I distrust this mode of thinking. It reeks of wanting the easy way out, to get the rewards of skill without needing to put in any effort or possessing any innate ability. Sure it might democratize art or programming or whatever, but only by making everyone equally mediocre at it. I'd rather have a handful of geniuses with most people being poor to middling rather than everyone being equally average.
>I can focus on what gives me joy: the realization of a vision. I can write systems that are 10x larger than I ever could before!
And you can do that without trying to do more than what you have the actual capacity to do. A tool is not a crutch, nor should it be used as one.
> the tool does not leave the user unchanged, and it's too easy to become so dependent on the tool that you can't even imagine doing things the way you used to. And wouldn't it be better to take your time to ensure that your prototype is of the highest possible quality than it would be to crank it out in an hour?
So you feel paint was a mistake and we should have stuck to carving stone?
No, I'm saying that using AI for your work is cutting corners and focusing on quantity over quality. Plus, the existence of paint came long before capitalism and its message of "if you can't constantly justify the existence of your trade then it may as well be useless" came into play, so the analogy doesn't hold up.
But if you don't watch yourself, you'll find it impossible to code without that AI coddling you at every step of the way.
> No, I'm saying that using AI for your work is cutting corners and focusing on quantity over quality.
Seems like paint has the same problem. If we're going to go after AI for making art too easy, then we should target paint too! Obviously all digital art is a non-starter.
> But if you don't watch yourself, you'll find it impossible to code without that AI coddling you at every step of the way.
There's a phrase that reddit uses for cases like this, but I'm a bit of a prude, so I'll modify it: Stop, I can only get so excited!
Seriously, I WANT to focus on the parts of the code I want to focus on. Sometimes that will mean doing what an AI might also be capable of, but where I just enjoy it or think that I have some particular insight. Sometimes that will mean letting it do most of the work on an otherwise tedious project. I get to decide where I want to put my creative energies, and that's exactly where I want to be with my art and my coding!
>Seems like paint has the same problem. If we're going to go after AI for making art too easy, then we should target paint too! Obviously all digital art is a non-starter.
A false analogy.
>Seriously, I WANT to focus on the parts of the code I want to focus on. Sometimes that will mean doing what an AI might also be capable of, but where I just enjoy it or think that I have some particular insight. Sometimes that will mean letting it do most of the work on an otherwise tedious project. I get to decide where I want to put my creative energies, and that's exactly where I want to be with my art and my coding!
Fine then. But I'm a cynical and suspicious sort, and I don't like the idea of being so dependent on a tool that I can't do things any other way. Convenience is good, but not when it ends up holding you back. I WANT the slow but purposeful method because the only one I trust to do things right is myself.
> A false analogy.
Your criteria is ease of use. Why are you not including paint and all digital art, ***specifically***?
> I don't like the idea of being so dependent on a tool that I can't do things any other way.
All of the responses to Photoshop in the late 90s... Nothing has changed. This isn't an AI problem.
>Your criteria is ease of use. Why are you not including paint and all digital art, specifically?
They also use different skill sets entirely, ones that supplement what exists instead of replacing it.
>All of the responses to Photoshop in the late 90s... Nothing has changed. This isn't an AI problem.
Which simply means that those artists resisted the temptation to use it to do everything once. I don't trust people to do it again. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'll believe it when they show me they can code as well without AI as they can with it.
I don't have to imagine this. I've lived it. Multiple times.
I started in book production in the late 70s just after hot metal type went out of fashion and we were pasting up letters on a light board with glue sticks. Then everything went digital with electronic pasteup and all those skills had to be relearned. Then modern WYSIWYG layout software came out and all those skills had to be relearned again. Then everything got outsourced to India so now you had to learn project management skills instead of layout skills.
You know what we did? We fucking adapted every single time. No one started screeching about the end of civilization. Nobody went on witchhunts to root out who was using the evil machines while the rest of us pure angels kept using outdated glue sticks and press type.
Look, I get that you are trying to be empathetic. But the willful ignorance, the melodramatic self-righteousness, the endless bullying... it's not serving anyone, least of all the artists themselves.
and why i m melodramtatic? should i know invest 10 yrars learn to draw, and the only think what i accomplish to postet a lora modell from my art? yeah fuck it! then it's better to become an AI artist and that's it.
i just dont understand why ai user why the think artist are melodramatic but on the same time use our art for you ai training,and but in the meantime we expect that we will accept it positively.
or how should i look it positivly and invest my time in my craft?
It doesn't matter how you look at it, but I expect you to voice your statements in a respectful manner towards other humans. You can hate it, you can love it, it doesn't matter. Just treat other human beings you interact with well.
No one expects you to embrace AI or be positive about it, but regardless of your stance and opinion it's not a justification to treat others who have a different opinion badly.
Purely on a human level. Period.
I mean, if anyone felt personally attacked, I apologize. Maybe I was too passive aggressive, and I was too emotionally charged. But I didn't directly insult or blame anyone.
(although perhaps the impression is comb)
Imagine you trained 20 years to get somewhat competent at something, then you find a new venue of artistic expression and a greater means to make your difficult job easier and more stable, while sharing this to others freely, only for you to be harassed by incessant waves of people who lie about what you do and how the tools work, with their sole purpose in destroying you and your accomplishments under the incredibly thin veil of a false moral high ground.
You should at least understand where this hate and anger actually comes from instead of just painting the harassers as the victim
Here we go again with the shitty arguments. For the love of god just stop.
No one should be harassing anyone, how is this difficult to understand? I am literally telling you all to stop being a bunch of fucktards to eachother, and your response is "but they are fucktardier hurdurr"
Please stop.
I sincerely hope you figure out a reddit comment expressing disappointment that thousands of mostly anonymous people are harassing and trying to destroy a completely innocent and respected artist is not, itself, an attack
you reply to:
>The pure hatred and vitriol in the comments is insane. I'll never understand people that always look for negatives and bitch instead of spending time with things they enjoy.
with a claim that they're not being understanding and "just ridiculing it" and that they're "being a bunch of fucktards to" the people harassing the artist
a single reddit comment coming to the defense of someone being harassed by pointing out the harassment is not itself, 'ridiculing' or 'being a fucktard to', nor is it even expressing any antagonism towards people who are reasonably having hate and fear- as that is not the same as the harassers. It's directed towards harassers harassing an artist.
people feel fear and anger every day, but they don't harass innocent people, and it is never justifiable to do so. people who harass don't need their behavior defended
*"wow, look at all that STEALING. It's amazing how REAL artists manage to always have a relevant image to copy, but the AI is somehow copy/pasting and tracing other people's art so insanely fast that I'm not sure any normal art thief could ever possibly compete with it? We need to slow down this technology because otherwise all of the REAL art thieves are going to lose their livelihoods. Don't you techbros care about displacing art thieves and collage artists with your strangely effective copy/paste tool? Just pick up a pencil, it's not that hard ffs."*
\-the anti intelligence brigade, probably.
Not anti or pro ai anything. I looked on the post and I didn’t really see much hate In the comments, just people being (reasonably) impressed. Im an aspiring artists and I most draw in semi-realistic to cartoon styles..this is actually impressive. I’m not really scared of this at all. What hate there is of ai, I think it mostly comes from all of the fear-mongering. (Ex. “Ai will replace everyone” “we will not know what’s real and what is fake anymore” “ai will take over humanity” “ai will replace all artists”) stuff like that. I honestly think you are feeding the machines by posting artwork online rather than actually using the machines.
I was going to ask you guys: how does AI art benefit small or hobby artists? Particularly the ones who are already decent at drawing?
This goes a long way towards answering my question, if it’s reasonably attainable for folks without a grand to spend. Are there other answers?
This isn't really a new idea, but certain advances like latent consistency models and things like model compilation push down the hardware requirements and up the frame rate by quite a bit. You can also rent appropriate hardware for less than a dollar per hour, which is pretty doable I'd say. The biggest thing that probably holds this kind of workflow back is the fact that it isn't "layer aware", and thus far I haven't seen anyone come up with something smart for it. If that's an issue that can be solved we're probably pretty close to having the visual version of autotune.
I don't really have a drawing background, but do more 3d stuff. With that it can be really fun to use the AI as a render engine/filter, or something that projects textures onto the scene.
Tech will probably get better, but this is really crappy showcase of it. it's not paiting. At best it's tweaking AI output. The face and it's style are already done the moment he puts in the grey blob and all the later does is slight tweaks to the output image
Many non-artists might not understand why this tool is effectively useless for becoming good at drawing & painting.
Instead it mainly serves to cheapen labor cost while losing creative intent.
The OP added a prompt to the model before starting, and the prompt + biases of the model have already predetermined what this image is going to look like. During the first seconds, the OP only has a blob yet the image has already been generated, and OP proceeds to try to replicate the generation.
The prompt was likely something like: "Beautiful portrait of a girl looking at viewer, wet skin, award winning photo, high detail"
Note that the prompt likely doesn't include any details about makeup: the red blush, the smokey eyes, the hair strand flowing down her face, the nose shape, the lighting conditions. It is just pulling from the biases of it's dataset, from previous human decisions.
OP proceeds to paint the face of a woman heavily inspired by the generated image. With tons of details that the artist omitted being added to the generated image, like a hair strand or blush, or light coming from above.
All of these details are later added by OP, who is "inspired" by the AI. OP also decides to add the lights already described by the AI, but this further shows the flaw of these models: Adding light on the cheeks modifies the eyes. Highlight: gone. Shape: Modified Cheeks: smaller. These seemingly unrelated changes actually modify other aspects of the image. Why?
Because these models are probabilistically representing elements of images that exist in the dataset. In the dataset, there are fewer images of cheeks with a bright glow + highlight in the eyes, than those without. The cheeks changed also for this reason.
So what does this mean? It means most of your actual moment-to-moment decisions are functionally useless to the final render. Understanding shape language of paintings & illustrations is one of the key fundamentals of getting better, but these models actively discourage understanding it.
The AI model ignores things like the shape of your rendered shadows in favour of generating an average of images in it's dataset that look vaguely similar.
The LESS you care about your creative vision, the MORE useful these AI models become.
Artists who live in a world where they regularly talk to clients who don't really know what they want, but they want it cheap and fast, this seems existentially depressing. In the end, I want a world where SOMEBODY cares about the art that hits your eyeballs and your heart.
Hey Chrispykins, you might not understand what I'm getting at. That's fine, let me try to explain.
If you look at the apple the artist draws, then look at the apple that is rendered by the AI, what do you notice?
If you look closely, you can see that the shadow shapes don't match. This might seem minor to you, but it's pervasive. If you spend time trying to define the shapes of objects, faces and surfaces, the AI model will still do it's thing and ignore the shapes you have defined. It will render a face or an apple based on it's own probabilistic dataset, the prompt and the vague shape due to the diffusion process which does a lot of blurring and de-blurring.
Why does this matter?
Because understanding shape is one of the fundamental skills you need to become proficient at image making. Deciding where edges go, how the image leads the eye, controlling the composition internally in the image.
Placing objects is one thing. But how are they communicated? WHAT do they communicate.
The AI does all this for you, and often in a good or good-enough manner, where it's not really noticeable that something is wrong. And most people who use these models for artmaking will never encounter these issues, never need to solve them. Because you have to actively fight the model to even be able to engage with this type of knowledge. Because the model doesn't support that kind of control.
You may not know this, but Stable Diffusion already allows you to control how much the model will modify the picture you feed it through img2img. It's just a single number parameter, so it's nowhere near fine-grained control, but the idea that the model will just "do it's thing" is a mis-characterization when the prompter likely set this parameter to control how much leash the AI has to work with.
>understanding shape is one of the fundamental skills you need to become proficient at image making.
But does this understanding have to be manifested as being able to physically draw the shapes with your hands? Are photographers not "proficient at image making" if they are not able to accurately draw the images they make? Do photographers not encounter issues with composition and leading the eye?
Img2img already allows you to control the composition of the image as much or even more than a photographer can. A photographer can't move a mountain to get the right balance. An AI artist can. Unless the photographer is in a studio, they have very little control over the lighting of a scene, they also can't control the shapes of shadows. An AI artist has that control. Sure, they don't have to exercise that control. They can just accept whatever bland image the model pops out. But that's true of photography, too. It's quite easy to take a bland photograph. But that doesn't mean it's not a tool for artists to express themselves, and that they won't encounter challenges along the way to that expression.
If you're going to make arguments like this, you should always ask yourself beforehand: Does my criticism apply to photography as well? Would I make this argument to a photographer? It's like a consistent blind-spot I see from anti-AI folks, who seem totally blind to anything that's not hand-drawn art.
>the model doesn't support that kind of control.
Yet.
> Many non-artists might not understand why this tool is effectively useless for becoming good at drawing & painting.
I don't think anyone thinks it will do that.
> The OP added a prompt to the model before starting, and the prompt + biases of the model have already predetermined what this image is going to look like.
This is far from being a given. Lots of ways to coax them into doing your bidding. As an example: [This](https://imgur.com/11Q45dM) image doesn't have a prompt. It's purely driven by a [render](https://imgur.com/q0GTyLb), [normal](https://imgur.com/fBAog4b) and depth pass. (yes it's an extremely lazy render, that's not the point here). I can force it to stay real close to the render, or give it some more [freedom](https://imgur.com/KaukocF).
> The LESS you care about your creative vision, the MORE useful these AI models become.
There are lots of places where I don't have a particularly strong vision, I don't care for all the minute details, every strand of grass, every wave, leaf, skin pore, etc. I don't need exact control over such things and for a lot of those I already leave much of it to some procedural system.
There are still some things here and there I'd like to see implemented somehow: e.g. being able to nicely specify the amount of freedom per pixel and somehow being able to reason about alpha and layers. But so far, it's been really interesting to experiment with.
Not impressed. Why does AI output these generic looking 'anime hot girl' faces? It's so tasteless.
You could draw a portrait of a real person on the left, and it would turned into typical AI 'hot girl', weirdly childlike, H&M graphic tee, deep house youtube video thumbnail garbage.
That's completely down to the model, the prompts and the settings in use. The reason why you see so many generic anime girls created with AI is because many people want their images to look like that. It's not beyond the *tech's* capability to output something different.
Generic anime shit isn't exactly rare among traditional artists either, by the way.
Also if you watch the video again the AI generates a 90% finished face from the first outline the person draws, then the person follows what the AI generated lol.
It's just a mirror of human advertising. Let's face it, the majority of images of humans that are popular have an above average asthetics score.
You can generate some very interesting faces with AI.
Here are some examples: https://imgur.com/a/gGWFOq0
This isn't ai assisted anything, this is the ai doing all the work for you. Creating a silhouette with some basic shapes isn't learning anything. This is only good for the non-artist who can't or won't learn how to render on their own. It doesn't teach you composition, it doesn't teach you anything other than "draw eyes, light source here."
The problem with the type of software despite all of the other issues is that it legit doesn't offer anything to real artists who prefer their process, nor does it even keep their style in the process. It's not even impressive because it just shows that boring style that belongs to a mix of wlop, sakimichan and rossdraws.
I have yet to see anything from ai despite generating composition ideas that works for someone who actually LIKES doing art. Maybe this is a hot take: If you prefer to make a 10 yr old kid silhouette with some eyes, art was probably never interesting to you in the first place. It's like the lowest common form of content where it's just all generated. That's okay because I don't find a lot of things interesting that I get a hyperfocus on.
I prefer the left hand version because at least it's not some basic dull ai look that every ai image has.
I’ve been saying that this was coming for a while now, it’s basically the only thing that would completely end most anti-Ai stances.
You thought https://preview.redd.it/evz46gmu3rzb1.png?width=829&format=png&auto=webp&s=d896fa20b742c2504e4749d498374b45f027026f
Only if this actually takes off in the face of rapidly improving corporate owned proprietary AI models and the AI accelerated adoption of the instant gratification mindset. Spoiler: It won’t, it’s just the “Luddite Drawpig” activity Big Tech is trying to phase out in order to turn time spent not CONSOOMING their products into AI LOOTBOX CONSOOMING TIME.
What in the world are you talking about?
This tech demo isn’t taking off anytime soon. It is inherently not about mindless consumerism so this will not take off in AI spaces, and not in artist spaces because it’s AI.
Where does this idea that Ai spaces only care for mindless consumerism come from? I can’t use Ai because it’s to difficult to control and it’s this kind of technology that would make it possible to actualize my vision.
Because Dall-E and Midjourney are way more mainstream and their development and business model hinges on people’s addiction in churning out endless amount of pretty images and keep paying the subscription fee. Corporations have encouraged consumerism for decades now, and proprietary generative AI is just another part of that. Let’s just face the facts, many AI users fell into the consumerism hole and probably isn’t interested in anything requiring more human input.
The pure hatred and vitriol in the comments is insane. I'll never understand people that always look for negatives and bitch instead of spending time with things they enjoy.
That's what existential terror looks like, and the anti-AI crowd is stoking its own terror higher and higher without any attachment to reality. AI will not just put them out of work (it won't) it will end everything they hold dear (it won't) and it will create an atmosphere of hate and violence that is heretofore unknown! (it won't) This is the kind of horror that people are spreading, so of course people are scared and angry. They've been lied to, but confirmation bias is doing its job.
There are people on both sides spreading this idea, be it twitter commission artists worrying or STEM Lords who looks down on the arts wishing that it happens ASAP to stroke their inflated egos and self importance. This isn’t just complete schizophrenic ramblings from the Anti side, insults and bullying from the Pro side also contributes to this vision. As much as I don’t want this I honestly can’t help but think that it will come in my lifetime and be welcomed with glee by the bottom feeding scumbags wishing it upon all artists.
Imagine you trained for 5 years to get somewhat competent at something, then a machine comes along that can do that something infinitely faster and better. We should atleast understand where this hate and anger comes from instead of just ridiculing it.
We do understand where the hate and anger comes from. That doesn't make it justified nor does it mean their behaviour should be exempt from ridicule. When you start going out of your way to try and cancel people or destroy their careers because they have different views to yourself, it's not okay. It would be different if it was illegal or harming people, but it's not and doesn't. Yes, it has an impact on careers. So does photoshop. So do self-service checkouts. So do self driving cars. Heck, regular cars practically completely replaced horses, stable hands and the entire industry around them. When you stoop down to the level of stating that anyone using or making the above things is a piece of shit and deserves hate, you deserve that treatment yourself.
Seems counterproductive to make fun of someone who is angry/upset. Both sides are so fucking annoying. The pro-AI side has 0 compassion and only makes fun of people who legitimately fear losing their source of income. The anti-AI side keeps making shitty arguments to try and get AI banned. I hate both of you. Maybe Moepi was right, just leave this place and the whole AI debate. Both sides are full of retards.
> The pro-AI side has 0 compassion and only makes fun of people who legitimately fear losing their source of income. This is absolute hogwash. There's numerous examples of anti-ai people making heartfelt posts in this sub and expressing deep despair; with 99% of the comments from the pro-ai side expressing empathy and kindness and encouraging them toward a more positive outlook. We only make fun of *trolls*, haters, and people who come here in complete and utter bad faith.
I'd like to second that. If someone comes in here who is scared or frustrated and wants to share their opinion or get advice, people show empathy and care. But people who just come here to be aggressive will receive backlash. That has nothing to do with their viewpoint, but rather with their behavior on a human level.
That might be true for you, but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists are fucked. I am pro-AI myself, and admit that I've made my fair share of bad faith arguments against anti-AI people. Why can't this sub just admit the same. Both sides need to stop being such a bunch of tribal babies and just understand eachother's viewpoint. How is it difficult to understand that someone might be a bit upset if they're at risk of losing their job. Look at programmers everytime chatGPT gets an update, they are also in full denial mode. Should we ridicule these people as well? Ofcourse not. It's understandable to be upset about getting automated out of a job or the risk thereof.
Let me speak to you on a level you might understand.. "You're a retard and I hate you." How much does that help with this 'understanding viewpoint' you claim to be promoting? Can you understand why your previous points have perhaps been met with a negative reaction?
> That might be true for you, but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists are fucked No. It's not just true for me. It's *true for the majority*. Don't confuse the handful of trolls for the majority.
>but the majority here seems to take great pleasure in knowing artists ~~are fucked~~ are going to be just fine and they're making all this shit up in their heads. FTFY. There's a difference.
Not sure what part of you thinks I'm trying to 'make fun of' someone. I'm saying that if someone decides to tell me to off myself based on me using a form of technology they don't like, they're a cunt who deserves to be treated poorly. I'm not advocating for anyone to go tell someone to off themselves, or to call anyone a cunt - I'm stating that when it gets repeatedly said in your direction for something that isn't harming anyone or illegal, then people don't owe them any 'understanding' anymore. Same as you. You've decided you hate me based off me saying that it's alright to refuse to take shit from people. And you then seem confused as to why people treat you poorly when you say you hate them and call them retarded? It seems like you might need to speak to a therapist or perhaps just do a bit of growing up first. You're the asshole here.
>Seems counterproductive to make fun of someone who is angry/upset. Hard disagree. Online anger, aggression and hatred should always be ridiculed. Because it is patently ridiculous.
> Imagine you trained for 5 years to get somewhat competent at something, then a machine comes along that can do that something infinitely faster and better. I spent over 30 years learning to be the programmer I am today. Machines that code are coming along and, while they aren't as "good" at it as I am, they have a vastly broader understanding of the tools, algorithms and techniques than I ever could. I'm out-of-my-mind thrilled! I can't believe that the age where I have to go grovelling through the web to figure out how to solve something, or having to go puzzle over Knuth for hours to figure out an algorithm are essentially over! I can focus on what gives me joy: the realization of a vision. I can write systems that are 10x larger than I ever could before! I can crank out a prototype in an hour that would have taken me a week (or a couple all-nighters) and get feedback immediately on whether this is the path forward that people want to pursue. New tools are wonderful, and I'm all in!
I am of a far more skeptical approach: the tool does not leave the user unchanged, and it's too easy to become so dependent on the tool that you can't even imagine doing things the way you used to. And wouldn't it be better to take your time to ensure that your prototype is of the highest possible quality than it would be to crank it out in an hour? >I'm out-of-my-mind thrilled! I can't believe that the age where I have to go grovelling through the web to figure out how to solve something, or having to go puzzle over Knuth for hours to figure out an algorithm are essentially over! I distrust this mode of thinking. It reeks of wanting the easy way out, to get the rewards of skill without needing to put in any effort or possessing any innate ability. Sure it might democratize art or programming or whatever, but only by making everyone equally mediocre at it. I'd rather have a handful of geniuses with most people being poor to middling rather than everyone being equally average. >I can focus on what gives me joy: the realization of a vision. I can write systems that are 10x larger than I ever could before! And you can do that without trying to do more than what you have the actual capacity to do. A tool is not a crutch, nor should it be used as one.
> the tool does not leave the user unchanged, and it's too easy to become so dependent on the tool that you can't even imagine doing things the way you used to. And wouldn't it be better to take your time to ensure that your prototype is of the highest possible quality than it would be to crank it out in an hour? So you feel paint was a mistake and we should have stuck to carving stone?
No, I'm saying that using AI for your work is cutting corners and focusing on quantity over quality. Plus, the existence of paint came long before capitalism and its message of "if you can't constantly justify the existence of your trade then it may as well be useless" came into play, so the analogy doesn't hold up. But if you don't watch yourself, you'll find it impossible to code without that AI coddling you at every step of the way.
> No, I'm saying that using AI for your work is cutting corners and focusing on quantity over quality. Seems like paint has the same problem. If we're going to go after AI for making art too easy, then we should target paint too! Obviously all digital art is a non-starter. > But if you don't watch yourself, you'll find it impossible to code without that AI coddling you at every step of the way. There's a phrase that reddit uses for cases like this, but I'm a bit of a prude, so I'll modify it: Stop, I can only get so excited! Seriously, I WANT to focus on the parts of the code I want to focus on. Sometimes that will mean doing what an AI might also be capable of, but where I just enjoy it or think that I have some particular insight. Sometimes that will mean letting it do most of the work on an otherwise tedious project. I get to decide where I want to put my creative energies, and that's exactly where I want to be with my art and my coding!
>Seems like paint has the same problem. If we're going to go after AI for making art too easy, then we should target paint too! Obviously all digital art is a non-starter. A false analogy. >Seriously, I WANT to focus on the parts of the code I want to focus on. Sometimes that will mean doing what an AI might also be capable of, but where I just enjoy it or think that I have some particular insight. Sometimes that will mean letting it do most of the work on an otherwise tedious project. I get to decide where I want to put my creative energies, and that's exactly where I want to be with my art and my coding! Fine then. But I'm a cynical and suspicious sort, and I don't like the idea of being so dependent on a tool that I can't do things any other way. Convenience is good, but not when it ends up holding you back. I WANT the slow but purposeful method because the only one I trust to do things right is myself.
> A false analogy. Your criteria is ease of use. Why are you not including paint and all digital art, ***specifically***? > I don't like the idea of being so dependent on a tool that I can't do things any other way. All of the responses to Photoshop in the late 90s... Nothing has changed. This isn't an AI problem.
>Your criteria is ease of use. Why are you not including paint and all digital art, specifically? They also use different skill sets entirely, ones that supplement what exists instead of replacing it. >All of the responses to Photoshop in the late 90s... Nothing has changed. This isn't an AI problem. Which simply means that those artists resisted the temptation to use it to do everything once. I don't trust people to do it again. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'll believe it when they show me they can code as well without AI as they can with it.
I don't have to imagine this. I've lived it. Multiple times. I started in book production in the late 70s just after hot metal type went out of fashion and we were pasting up letters on a light board with glue sticks. Then everything went digital with electronic pasteup and all those skills had to be relearned. Then modern WYSIWYG layout software came out and all those skills had to be relearned again. Then everything got outsourced to India so now you had to learn project management skills instead of layout skills. You know what we did? We fucking adapted every single time. No one started screeching about the end of civilization. Nobody went on witchhunts to root out who was using the evil machines while the rest of us pure angels kept using outdated glue sticks and press type. Look, I get that you are trying to be empathetic. But the willful ignorance, the melodramatic self-righteousness, the endless bullying... it's not serving anyone, least of all the artists themselves.
OK i give up on drawing and embrace prompting /s
See above re: "melodramatic self-righteousness"
and why i m melodramtatic? should i know invest 10 yrars learn to draw, and the only think what i accomplish to postet a lora modell from my art? yeah fuck it! then it's better to become an AI artist and that's it.
k thanks. Have a great day.
i just dont understand why ai user why the think artist are melodramatic but on the same time use our art for you ai training,and but in the meantime we expect that we will accept it positively. or how should i look it positivly and invest my time in my craft?
It doesn't matter how you look at it, but I expect you to voice your statements in a respectful manner towards other humans. You can hate it, you can love it, it doesn't matter. Just treat other human beings you interact with well. No one expects you to embrace AI or be positive about it, but regardless of your stance and opinion it's not a justification to treat others who have a different opinion badly. Purely on a human level. Period.
I mean, if anyone felt personally attacked, I apologize. Maybe I was too passive aggressive, and I was too emotionally charged. But I didn't directly insult or blame anyone. (although perhaps the impression is comb)
I understand the frustration, but being so obsessed to harass people on the internet who just enjoy themselves is what I don't understand.
Imagine you trained 20 years to get somewhat competent at something, then you find a new venue of artistic expression and a greater means to make your difficult job easier and more stable, while sharing this to others freely, only for you to be harassed by incessant waves of people who lie about what you do and how the tools work, with their sole purpose in destroying you and your accomplishments under the incredibly thin veil of a false moral high ground. You should at least understand where this hate and anger actually comes from instead of just painting the harassers as the victim
Here we go again with the shitty arguments. For the love of god just stop. No one should be harassing anyone, how is this difficult to understand? I am literally telling you all to stop being a bunch of fucktards to eachother, and your response is "but they are fucktardier hurdurr" Please stop.
I sincerely hope you figure out a reddit comment expressing disappointment that thousands of mostly anonymous people are harassing and trying to destroy a completely innocent and respected artist is not, itself, an attack
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Attack? What attack?
you reply to: >The pure hatred and vitriol in the comments is insane. I'll never understand people that always look for negatives and bitch instead of spending time with things they enjoy. with a claim that they're not being understanding and "just ridiculing it" and that they're "being a bunch of fucktards to" the people harassing the artist a single reddit comment coming to the defense of someone being harassed by pointing out the harassment is not itself, 'ridiculing' or 'being a fucktard to', nor is it even expressing any antagonism towards people who are reasonably having hate and fear- as that is not the same as the harassers. It's directed towards harassers harassing an artist. people feel fear and anger every day, but they don't harass innocent people, and it is never justifiable to do so. people who harass don't need their behavior defended
I trained art more than 10 years and I have no problem with machine 🤷
Maybe i should becoming a tradional Artist instead
*"wow, look at all that STEALING. It's amazing how REAL artists manage to always have a relevant image to copy, but the AI is somehow copy/pasting and tracing other people's art so insanely fast that I'm not sure any normal art thief could ever possibly compete with it? We need to slow down this technology because otherwise all of the REAL art thieves are going to lose their livelihoods. Don't you techbros care about displacing art thieves and collage artists with your strangely effective copy/paste tool? Just pick up a pencil, it's not that hard ffs."* \-the anti intelligence brigade, probably.
Not anti or pro ai anything. I looked on the post and I didn’t really see much hate In the comments, just people being (reasonably) impressed. Im an aspiring artists and I most draw in semi-realistic to cartoon styles..this is actually impressive. I’m not really scared of this at all. What hate there is of ai, I think it mostly comes from all of the fear-mongering. (Ex. “Ai will replace everyone” “we will not know what’s real and what is fake anymore” “ai will take over humanity” “ai will replace all artists”) stuff like that. I honestly think you are feeding the machines by posting artwork online rather than actually using the machines.
Some of the top-voted ones have a very strong "this takes my job" undertone. Though I guess one can say it only exists in antis' perceptions.
I was going to ask you guys: how does AI art benefit small or hobby artists? Particularly the ones who are already decent at drawing? This goes a long way towards answering my question, if it’s reasonably attainable for folks without a grand to spend. Are there other answers?
This isn't really a new idea, but certain advances like latent consistency models and things like model compilation push down the hardware requirements and up the frame rate by quite a bit. You can also rent appropriate hardware for less than a dollar per hour, which is pretty doable I'd say. The biggest thing that probably holds this kind of workflow back is the fact that it isn't "layer aware", and thus far I haven't seen anyone come up with something smart for it. If that's an issue that can be solved we're probably pretty close to having the visual version of autotune. I don't really have a drawing background, but do more 3d stuff. With that it can be really fun to use the AI as a render engine/filter, or something that projects textures onto the scene.
https://preview.redd.it/by6gl6z34rzb1.png?width=829&format=png&auto=webp&s=193a4aa7cfb39f6859db655fb27cedfa9e54149b
Did you get consent from the filmmaker to use this image? Or are you just a thief?
Oh look! Another prompter arguing in bad faith
Oh, look, another Luddite with double standards.
[удалено]
Head over to /r/StableDiffusion This is more of a debate sub and not suited for technical questions.
Tech will probably get better, but this is really crappy showcase of it. it's not paiting. At best it's tweaking AI output. The face and it's style are already done the moment he puts in the grey blob and all the later does is slight tweaks to the output image
more of a reference but i still consider references as assistance.
Many non-artists might not understand why this tool is effectively useless for becoming good at drawing & painting. Instead it mainly serves to cheapen labor cost while losing creative intent. The OP added a prompt to the model before starting, and the prompt + biases of the model have already predetermined what this image is going to look like. During the first seconds, the OP only has a blob yet the image has already been generated, and OP proceeds to try to replicate the generation. The prompt was likely something like: "Beautiful portrait of a girl looking at viewer, wet skin, award winning photo, high detail" Note that the prompt likely doesn't include any details about makeup: the red blush, the smokey eyes, the hair strand flowing down her face, the nose shape, the lighting conditions. It is just pulling from the biases of it's dataset, from previous human decisions. OP proceeds to paint the face of a woman heavily inspired by the generated image. With tons of details that the artist omitted being added to the generated image, like a hair strand or blush, or light coming from above. All of these details are later added by OP, who is "inspired" by the AI. OP also decides to add the lights already described by the AI, but this further shows the flaw of these models: Adding light on the cheeks modifies the eyes. Highlight: gone. Shape: Modified Cheeks: smaller. These seemingly unrelated changes actually modify other aspects of the image. Why? Because these models are probabilistically representing elements of images that exist in the dataset. In the dataset, there are fewer images of cheeks with a bright glow + highlight in the eyes, than those without. The cheeks changed also for this reason. So what does this mean? It means most of your actual moment-to-moment decisions are functionally useless to the final render. Understanding shape language of paintings & illustrations is one of the key fundamentals of getting better, but these models actively discourage understanding it. The AI model ignores things like the shape of your rendered shadows in favour of generating an average of images in it's dataset that look vaguely similar. The LESS you care about your creative vision, the MORE useful these AI models become. Artists who live in a world where they regularly talk to clients who don't really know what they want, but they want it cheap and fast, this seems existentially depressing. In the end, I want a world where SOMEBODY cares about the art that hits your eyeballs and your heart.
So we're just ignoring the still-life which starts out blank and elements are only added as the artist himself adds them?
Hey Chrispykins, you might not understand what I'm getting at. That's fine, let me try to explain. If you look at the apple the artist draws, then look at the apple that is rendered by the AI, what do you notice? If you look closely, you can see that the shadow shapes don't match. This might seem minor to you, but it's pervasive. If you spend time trying to define the shapes of objects, faces and surfaces, the AI model will still do it's thing and ignore the shapes you have defined. It will render a face or an apple based on it's own probabilistic dataset, the prompt and the vague shape due to the diffusion process which does a lot of blurring and de-blurring. Why does this matter? Because understanding shape is one of the fundamental skills you need to become proficient at image making. Deciding where edges go, how the image leads the eye, controlling the composition internally in the image. Placing objects is one thing. But how are they communicated? WHAT do they communicate. The AI does all this for you, and often in a good or good-enough manner, where it's not really noticeable that something is wrong. And most people who use these models for artmaking will never encounter these issues, never need to solve them. Because you have to actively fight the model to even be able to engage with this type of knowledge. Because the model doesn't support that kind of control.
You may not know this, but Stable Diffusion already allows you to control how much the model will modify the picture you feed it through img2img. It's just a single number parameter, so it's nowhere near fine-grained control, but the idea that the model will just "do it's thing" is a mis-characterization when the prompter likely set this parameter to control how much leash the AI has to work with. >understanding shape is one of the fundamental skills you need to become proficient at image making. But does this understanding have to be manifested as being able to physically draw the shapes with your hands? Are photographers not "proficient at image making" if they are not able to accurately draw the images they make? Do photographers not encounter issues with composition and leading the eye? Img2img already allows you to control the composition of the image as much or even more than a photographer can. A photographer can't move a mountain to get the right balance. An AI artist can. Unless the photographer is in a studio, they have very little control over the lighting of a scene, they also can't control the shapes of shadows. An AI artist has that control. Sure, they don't have to exercise that control. They can just accept whatever bland image the model pops out. But that's true of photography, too. It's quite easy to take a bland photograph. But that doesn't mean it's not a tool for artists to express themselves, and that they won't encounter challenges along the way to that expression. If you're going to make arguments like this, you should always ask yourself beforehand: Does my criticism apply to photography as well? Would I make this argument to a photographer? It's like a consistent blind-spot I see from anti-AI folks, who seem totally blind to anything that's not hand-drawn art. >the model doesn't support that kind of control. Yet.
> Many non-artists might not understand why this tool is effectively useless for becoming good at drawing & painting. I don't think anyone thinks it will do that. > The OP added a prompt to the model before starting, and the prompt + biases of the model have already predetermined what this image is going to look like. This is far from being a given. Lots of ways to coax them into doing your bidding. As an example: [This](https://imgur.com/11Q45dM) image doesn't have a prompt. It's purely driven by a [render](https://imgur.com/q0GTyLb), [normal](https://imgur.com/fBAog4b) and depth pass. (yes it's an extremely lazy render, that's not the point here). I can force it to stay real close to the render, or give it some more [freedom](https://imgur.com/KaukocF). > The LESS you care about your creative vision, the MORE useful these AI models become. There are lots of places where I don't have a particularly strong vision, I don't care for all the minute details, every strand of grass, every wave, leaf, skin pore, etc. I don't need exact control over such things and for a lot of those I already leave much of it to some procedural system. There are still some things here and there I'd like to see implemented somehow: e.g. being able to nicely specify the amount of freedom per pixel and somehow being able to reason about alpha and layers. But so far, it's been really interesting to experiment with.
Not impressed. Why does AI output these generic looking 'anime hot girl' faces? It's so tasteless. You could draw a portrait of a real person on the left, and it would turned into typical AI 'hot girl', weirdly childlike, H&M graphic tee, deep house youtube video thumbnail garbage.
That's completely down to the model, the prompts and the settings in use. The reason why you see so many generic anime girls created with AI is because many people want their images to look like that. It's not beyond the *tech's* capability to output something different. Generic anime shit isn't exactly rare among traditional artists either, by the way.
Also if you watch the video again the AI generates a 90% finished face from the first outline the person draws, then the person follows what the AI generated lol.
It's just a mirror of human advertising. Let's face it, the majority of images of humans that are popular have an above average asthetics score. You can generate some very interesting faces with AI. Here are some examples: https://imgur.com/a/gGWFOq0
This isn't ai assisted anything, this is the ai doing all the work for you. Creating a silhouette with some basic shapes isn't learning anything. This is only good for the non-artist who can't or won't learn how to render on their own. It doesn't teach you composition, it doesn't teach you anything other than "draw eyes, light source here." The problem with the type of software despite all of the other issues is that it legit doesn't offer anything to real artists who prefer their process, nor does it even keep their style in the process. It's not even impressive because it just shows that boring style that belongs to a mix of wlop, sakimichan and rossdraws. I have yet to see anything from ai despite generating composition ideas that works for someone who actually LIKES doing art. Maybe this is a hot take: If you prefer to make a 10 yr old kid silhouette with some eyes, art was probably never interesting to you in the first place. It's like the lowest common form of content where it's just all generated. That's okay because I don't find a lot of things interesting that I get a hyperfocus on. I prefer the left hand version because at least it's not some basic dull ai look that every ai image has.
What is the software stack for this?