Asked the moderators to remove this post since this this sparked a unintended controversy.
Post is still here so I removed my content, thank you for your understanding.
4 Likes
As an artist that creates unique traditional and digital works, AI generated shouldnāt be applauded, excused or made to seem like it needs the explanation you just gave it as if you labored through it yourself.
The entire schtick is stealing preexisting works without permission to generate āartā.
Do you have a piece you did yourself without AI?
For me an example of what I have done is my profile picture. No AI. My own intellectual property. Did it myself.
4 Likes
Ai is not a technique.
AI is simply a tool just like Photoshop, Gimp, or Paint .net
All of those can be used to āsteal artworkā if all you do is feed someoneās elseās work into it, or use Copy and Paste. Good artists who are flexible will be able to introduce AI into their workflows to generate results that are both artistic and original.
Those who refuse AI on ignorant principles risk being left behind. Specifically in the realm of commercial art. Obviously it has no effects on the hobbyist.
The arguments against AI tools were the same ones made decades ago when Computer aided drawing and painting became more and more available.
1 Like
I agree here. It can help you improve existing artwork.
Sure you can call it āartā but it still based on models that were generated by existing images fed into it. So there was always some kind of source artwork.
2 Likes
I am not opposed to utilizing tools, not by a long shot.
What I am opposed to in general is giving it the same merit, terminology and equivocation as the actual labor, talent and brain power it took to create a piece as a person.
The OPs AI generated picture is not just using a tool. It was some words plugged into a program and it spit out a picture and then they did some tweaks in PS.
Are you an artist?
1 Like
All digital images are ai created. If you set the contrast itās not that you do it with your skills in painting. Picasso maybe would say the same about digital artworkā¦ Its not art.
Thats the future and I understand also the people who do their art works without ai.
Why pay much money if you just can generate it for much less money and time.
1 Like
I was asking @Taemien
Donāt get me wrong here. They brought up a very important point and one I did not touch on.
AI itself of course is not the problem. It is being used as an excellent tool.
My previous comments touch on why it is often an issue if used as many are using it now including yourself.
Yes, though ironically I do better with physical mediums than I do digital. Though I have enough experience in digital to be able to do technical adjustments depending on what format, size, or ratio is needed. Mostly in a hobbyist role, but I have worked on professional projects in the past.
The OP plugging words into the AI and getting something spat out isnāt much different than having a program draw a line for you, or a circle, or some other shape. Its definitely more sophisticated in the results it can spit out. And contrary to popular believe, AI doesnāt āstoreā images it āseesā on the internet. Instead it uses its algorithms to study the various different shapes, colors, contrasts, and other specifications that makes up certain content.
Thatās not stealing art anymore than someone looking at something and being inspired to draw or paint something similar. In fact the technology that went into AI generated art originally started off as self driving automobile environment recognition. They just found the same algorithms that can recognize people as people and different road signs and symbology could be refined to generate or enhance art.
When people do steal art and use AI is when they actually download someoneās file and use that as a basis and then use the AI to change things about it. But this has been done with Photoshop (its the reason its called Photoshop) since its inception.
If I took your image and used paint .net or Gimp to change the hair color, maybe use some other tools to change the hair length a bit, and then change the skin colorā¦ then claimed it as new, that would be stealing. But if I drew up another character in a similar pose. It would not.
The OPās image is a rough example of an AI version of many images Iāve crafted in paint to get a point across. Its prettier. But no one owns basic colors, shadings, and shapes. No oneās work was stolen.
1 Like
As an artist myself, I am certainly intrigued by AIās ever evolving capabilities. Iām willing to play the devilās advocate here, so bare with me. Thereās one thing I can see beneficial for AI after giving it much thought.
Many artists can get creative blocks and I can see it as way to develop ideas. Letās say youāre not sure where to go with a character design, but you start throwing out ideas. It can work as a sort of visual brainstorming process. Wanna know different ways a pirate cat from outer space would look? Try it. Wanna see a politician in a diaper wielding a katana? Sure, go for it. This doesnāt mean you use the work itself, but you can use it as a guideline to create your own. The algorithms will often use pre-existing works for the foundation, but the uniqueness of the image itself is still there.
Long story short, use it as means to get through creative blockages, not to pass off as art. A friend and co-worker of mine uses one of the higher end AIs to create character visuals for his short stories. He has stated that he doesnāt use them for commercial purposes, but rather to get an idea of what they look like when he draws them from reference.
1 Like
Lol I have no idea what you are criticising there, you must have twin electronic microscopes for eyes because honestly it looks perfectly fine to me?!
1 Like
The ear is a bit deformed, the hair might look like its blending in the face on some screens, for me I see rough hair and wounds with blood though.
Anyway I made some more images which are betterā¦ but I donāt feel like sharing any more.
This topic fell into a argue against and in favour.
Which on both sides I can understand, but this wasnāt my intend.
@Funcom please close the topic.
2 Likes
My apologies, manā¦ the world of AI works is still a sore spot for many and Iāve found discussion of it to be very difficult in some circles. Iām against it as a form of passing off as your own work, yet, as Iāve stated, I can see a good purpose for it. Sad thing is, there are many that will use it for malicious reasons. This is where the fear of AI stems from. It can take food from the mouths of artists. Iāve even heard of a Chinese game company that fired many artists and replaced them with AI to save on production costs. So yeah, itās a slippery slope. However, donāt be discouraged. 
2 Likes
Donāt lose heart mate, they look cool and please continue to play with AI.
1 Like
As someone who designs for a local publication, this is amazing. Iām constantly spending hours in photoshop on the last day(s) to clean up photos to make them work with the articles. This would definitely streamline much of what I do. Most photos need to be extended for bleeds and stuff. Mind blown. 
1 Like
Have you ever seen the ears of jiu jitsu fighters? They look like cauliflowers.
Sheās an MMA fighter! 
2 Likes
Iām with @Kikigirl , yet another thing traditional artists have to compete against. Iām purely traditional, (whilst I appreciate digital art, I still enjoy using pencils and inks over a computer)
1 Like
I am the same although something clicked in the last few years and I understand how to use PS for works now. I had been using the wrong tools previously.
I have no formal training and have only gone as far as doing commission work myself.
What about a pencil and ruler? Kinda funny reallyā¦ So no, that isnāt as similar as youāre trying to say.
Except that some of these companies are implementing algorithms that search varying databases and actually uses so much of the art that there have been cases where you see butchered signatures. The likeness to that individuals art is also so similar it is recognizable in the AI generated images by fans or those who know of the works.
Additionally, while there is creative commons and fair use laws the fact is that artists retain intellectual property and the ability to say no for commercial use. Most of these AI companies have skipped all that and are making profits by using these databases (google, w/e) and absolutely not asking permission.
So yes, they are stealing.
I know what Photoshop is. Iām very experienced with it and use it in my profession. I also had to study and understand copyright infringement and intellectual property and how it impacts businessesā and individuals who retain intellectual property. So Iād say Iām pretty in the know about this stuff.
You donāt know that because of the vast amount of resources (other peopleās art and their individual stances) that are being used.
There are few AI companies that are being lawful about this.
This is no different than a human browsing the internet for ideas or an art gallery. The images are not being saved. Thereās no way they could save millions of images, thereās not enough storage for that. So nothing is being stolen.
If you donāt want your work being used for human or machine inspiration, keep it off the net. That is the new future going forward.
1 Like
Thereās several news articles regarding AI stealing artists work. Class actions against a few too
1 Like