AI Generated Artwork Takes First Place in Art Contest

Robots are better than humans at a lot of tasks, but who would have thought they would be winning art contest in 2022.
₿💰💵💲Help Support the Channel by Donating Crypto💲💵💰₿
Monero
45F2bNHVcRzXVBsvZ5giyvKGAgm6LFhMsjUUVPTEtdgJJ5SNyxzSNUmFSBR5qCCWLpjiUjYMkmZoX9b3cChNjvxR7kvh436
Bitcoin
3MMKHXPQrGHEsmdHaAGD59FWhKFGeUsAxV
Ethereum
0xeA4DA3F9BAb091Eb86921CA6E41712438f4E5079
Litecoin
MBfrxLJMuw26hbVi2MjCVDFkkExz8rYvUF
Dash
Xh9PXPEy5RoLJgFDGYCDjrbXdjshMaYerz
Zcash
t1aWtU5SBpxuUWBSwDKy4gTkT2T1ZwtFvrr
Chainlink
0x0f7f21D267d2C9dbae17fd8c20012eFEA3678F14
Bitcoin Cash
qz2st00dtu9e79zrq5wshsgaxsjw299n7c69th8ryp
Etherum Classic
0xeA641e59913960f578ad39A6B4d02051A5556BfC
USD Coin
0x0B045f743A693b225630862a3464B52fefE79FdB
Subscribe to my KZbin channel goo.gl/9U10Wz
and be sure to click that notification bell so you know when new videos are released.

[@VladimirDemetrovIlyushin]

I find it funny corporate artstyle is more soulless than literal AI mashing shit together.

[@ThatUntitledPublisher]

Wth over 200 likes and no comments?

[@NKillBruh]

@@ThatUntitledPublisher sometimes you agree with something and you cant say anything about it

[@alexniklaus6216]

damn your right

[@InvadeNormandy]

Best comment here.

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

I for one welcome artists' robot overlords. Just wait until someone uses Danbooru to train an AI.

[@D3xterJettster]

As long as the AI doesn't get rejected from art school, we should be fine.

[@kikc]

this deserves more likes

[@Hubertoser]

He got rejectet because a certain minority ruled about the majority, and prefered that minority.

[@chubbysolaireeaterofpussy3192]

i just pictured metaverse blitzkrieg

[@ER-je3fd]

Dude I am choking so hard at this comment, holy shit.

[@mif4731]

So sad, many people don't understand this golden comment

[@AbyssalSoda]

6:34 Digital art takes more skill than you know. I can draw with traditional pencils charcoal and a kneaded eraser hyperealistically, yet the second I touch a drawing tablet my skills go out the window. I been working on digital for 3 years and haven't matched up yet to were my traditional level is at. Digital Art is certainly as valid as traditional and painting.

[@CuteSkyler]

I'm total dogshit at digital art, but I will defend that digital art is, for lack of a better word, lazier than traditional art. You just don't have the overpowered undo button in traditional works.

[@AbyssalSoda]

@@CuteSkyler Imperfections are what make a lot of art look good, and on traditional art they come naturally with the papers texture, with your hand, and by rubbing an eraser to control exactly what and how much you want gone. Digital art requires you to fake all of those natural imperfections with filters and overlays, which often time can't emulate it right so you have to manually touch up and add the imperfections yourself with a mix of textured brushes to prevent people from recognizing a pattern. Digital art has an undo button sure. But that doesn't compare to the amount of control that comes from a kneaded eraser, or the amount of detail that comes from traditional drawing.

[@naniyotaka]

​@@CuteSkyler It’s not lazy to hit undo… you waste so much time in digital art with undoing every “imperfect” line so you basically work harder than traditional artist who make the line and they are done. Digital artist draw the line 6 times while you only do it once.

[@CuteSkyler]

@@naniyotaka Traditional artists do that too, y'know.

[@naniyotaka]

@@CuteSkyler Then why is it lazy to use undo if you do it too just in a different way? :D

[@zasterheffor]

AI generated art needs its own category. While it is technically derivative, and predicated on human input, aesthetic judgement, fine-tuning, it is not at all equivalent or comparable to art made by hand. The end product demands the utilization of a completely different set of skills altogether, and skills that are often overlooked when jumping into a separate category. It's the equivalent of comparing a photoshopped photograph to a hand-drawn suprematist piece. They're in their own universes of aesthetics.

[@kiarasessyoin]

Finally a good take on this!

[@Virsputin]

fair point

[@radiokunio3738]

Argeed this how thing feels someone comparing a Photo to Painted Portrait and stateing the Photo is better because it's more realistic. Both Medias are valid, but thier two different crafts.

[@criticastrike]

Yeah, i do feel the same.

[@attilatorok5767]

I would like to make a materialist argument on this. It is an art competition not a painting competition (using painting as an example). The end result of digital art made in photoshop photographs or AI generated images or any combination of these is a bunch of pixels on a screen that are rated by how asthetically pleasing (or whatever metric humans decide to rate it by) they are. It is literally impossible to tell what method was used given an artist skilled enough to depict realism.

[@Sunneyred]

these robots are focusing on making good art, im focusing on making bad art. we are not the same

[@spqri3]

Humans are electricity and algorithms too. They just can't bring themselves to admit it.

[@vanillabatcave5677]

Blog? I like how that sounds

[@Sunneyred]

@@spqri3 they? are you implying youre not human? are you the ai that won the art competition?

[@leonnortje8330]

LOL...this is me yes

[@Periwinkleaccount]

@@Sunneyred it auto removed its reply to hide its tracks.

[@TiberianFiend]

The artists catering to the coomer crowd have the safest jobs because the programmers making these AI's think their projects are too high-brow to make such things.

[@Eatyourtoenails]

Well I wouldn't say that, if you take a look at Stability AI with their stable diffusion. It's open source so there are already nsfw communities like the unstable diffusion discord.

[@esqueletoenllamas3406]

@@Eatyourtoenails Do you have a link?

[@speedeespeedboi9527]

@@Eatyourtoenails is there an ai that does not filter celebrities?

[@HUEHUEUHEPony]

@@Eatyourtoenails link please

[@Eatyourtoenails]

@@speedeespeedboi9527 It doesn't filter anything afaik. It does have an nsfw-ish filter, but it can be removed by literally commenting out 3 lines of code. I'm running my own instance of on my pc with only 6gb vram. As far as i know there are python libs that gives you a gui and nsfw toggle.

[@clobre_]

The input can also be automatically generated with AI, for example training an AI to generate a prompt with midjourney prompts

[@attilatorok5767]

Training AI to come up with prompts that generate images that humans tend to like. Maybe even a certain demographic. Maybe even a specific person. Automated AI art for a certain person. Like a Twitter art page or art Facebook group or whatever. Designed specifically cater to you. No human designers required. It will happen and anybody is free to quote me on this.

[@GHOSTTIEF]

@@attilatorok5767 sounds like a profit imagine custom weekly/daily backgrounds just for you based on your internet tracking amazing discord mods will have Loli backgrounds of course

[@HarambaeXelonmuskfans]

When you’re so uncreative you need a bot to generate inputs for you

[@41-Haiku]

​@@attilatorok5767 100%. TikTok blew up because its algorithm curates really well, and there is a tremendous amount of easily digestible content for it to serve. The last remaining step is to make the content itself algorithmically generated. Imagine a late night doom scroll, but it's exclusively your favorite things, in endless variety, forever. The plug in the back of the head was never necessary.

[@abenkassing]

Ai reads prompt of art contest, plugs a prompt into another ai, then filters through thousands of results to find the best one.

[@gachatookthekids]

It honestly looks pretty good, but I think we should put them in a different category.

[@Shajirr_]

Well the "easy" solution to that already exists - physical paintings only, not digital. Even if someone decides to cheat using AI, they would still need to actually paint the painting.

[@beardalaxy]

@@Shajirr_ physical paintings for one competition, digital for another and in the digital competition you have to provide the PSD file or whatever else you're using to basically "show your work." i don't think using AI to cheat if you're actually drawing it is really a consideration, artists are usually taking inspiration from elsewhere or using pose models, you know stuff like that. AI being one of those tools is no different.

[@slavicslav7459]

That's racist. I agree.

[@indestructible247]

Nah let them be in the same category otherwise these shitty "artists" will keep making these shitty abstract pieces of shit and then claim that their trashy paintings are philosophically deep and won't ever improve their shitty inbred "art"

[@user-pl6hc4kj1o]

I'm gay.

[@pinkyissnug7427]

AI art shouldn't be in an art contest, it should be in an AI contest

[@Gadottinho]

true. art is made by humans and not by anything else. if AI becomes sentient, then maybe it could be xD

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

If a person used AI art without talking about it, nobody knows

[@_.-.]

Not the point. This was done to prove the whole "soul and purpose and sweat and tears" argument was bullshit. The piece passed the Turing test, and judges went and gave purpose and human semblance to something made by an algorithm, proving art is truly on the eyes of the beholder, and that this coping art students sell you literal smoke and something that YOU actually add to a piece: perceived value based on beauty. In other words, the jig is up.

[@pladselsker8340]

I would love to see humans beat this AI in a contest, and I don't think it's impossible

[@matty6796]

​@@_.-. pov : you can't draw for shit and coping with ai art is your only way to boost your ego

[@porridgeramen7220]

The comparison of AI vs Digital artists, to Digital vs Traditional artists doesn't hold water. What this guy did for the contest is like bringing a Bugatti Veyron to an Olympic 100m Sprint. Just hit the pedal and go. Digital art may have made a lot of stuff easier than traditional, but it also expanded the skill ceiling if the existing craft painters had mastered. With this AI stuff, all you gotta do is be "the ideas guy". I do think that as long as people are looking to create something new for a unfulfilled niche, there will be a need to artists to produce something less insular than AI art.

[@oldaccount746]

In some ways traditional is easier because you have the added aesthetic appeal of the materials themselves. It's actually very difficult to make digital art look traditional. Just because there's an undo / erase option doesn't mean having good ability to control your lines isn't important either because every mistake you make and don't notice along the way is going to effect the product in the end.

[@gierdziui9003]

you all are completely wrong all artists will soon be replaced with prompt engineers and minds of such complexity that our current art will mean nothing to them, they will fly among the the endless possibilities of AI-empowered art-making, having whatever they want on the tips of their fingers, no longer bound by the shortcomings of traditional ways of making art, which is time-consuming and still cant express THE MIND, just approximate everywhere future is bright!

[@krsmanjovanovic8607]

@@gierdziui9003 so guild of super rare ultra rich organic server of high class post human mutants merged with artificial inteligence supercomputer is going to hold monopoly over art as whole? Thats actualy great idea for story, tnx! Fits right into my biopunk seting

[@charlesc.9012]

@@gierdziui9003 They will require 2 million watts of power to operate and a olympic swimming pool of mineral oil to cool. Rave all you like, but that is unsustainable. Perfection also requires the mastery of all skill sets, because the machine cannot perfect the texture you desire on every patch on the canvas

[@cocorosh7295]

The whole video I was like wtf is this guy talking about until he said "im not an artist" and that explained his shitty opinion on the AI. Saying it's art in a way... bitch what? He rlly compared decades of hard work, countless hours sitting in a chair pulling ur fucking hair because u can't understand anatomy, perspective, color theory, etc, to have this corn bread ass dude say that someone typing a few words in his fucking keyboard is art. Stop.

[@wasserruebenvergilbungsvirus]

The AI generated picture is unironically really nice. Human involvement in art isn't going away anytime soon, generating a good AI artwork (or picking a good one out of 1000 mediocre ones) still requires knowledge of things like colour and composition.

[@kurostyx9124]

let them learn corporate artstyle, then you wont need artists to make one anymore

[@ologhai8559]

yeah... its just digital

[@4nanaide]

no.

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

@Bluebird eh, people like people's art for a reason, usually personal ones. While the AI can paint a pretty picture generated from other people's pretty pictures they won't really have any meaning behind them other then "looks nice". Visual illustration will be a lot more accessible but art for the sake of art won't be gone.. ever.

[@user-ro1cc8tz6d]

lmao

[@mudskie4394]

Let's be real here, AI's great, as long it doesn't interfere on contests where trad artists are also included That's like bringing a chainsaw in a woodchopping competition

[@comfortablydoomed6280]

It's like a self chopping bit of wood that works on prompts.

[@thepurpleman119]

It’s like Armstrong using steroids during Tour de France. It simply isn’t fair

[@dr_birb]

It just doesn't make sense to award AI painting... you can hang it on a wall, claim it as masterpiece or sell as NFT, but in a competition where big part of it is artist's skill expression, that just undermines it.

[@charlesc.9012]

It actually feels like Group B, Group A etc. in rallying, where all machines are analogue regardless of how much advantage you have in power. Right now, one way to get around could be to scrutinise traditional skills more vigorously, because while AI might perfect lighting and saturation, you still can't fake brushstrokes. It also raises the bar so that the talented stand a substantially better chance of winning by having better ideas and not purely technical skills, which is what everyone can do easily

[@RickyFSeiei]

Its more like bringing chainsaw and stealing other contenstant woods for wood chipping

[@Scrogan]

“Use of AI” Isn’t really a binary, considering photoshop already has AI-based tools in it. From the enhancement of simple tools, to the easy creation of realistic textures or shadows, to the easy editing of the composition of an image, there’s a whole spectrum of AI involvement. And yeah, digital art contests will need to start placing limitations on that.

[@wumwum42]

And you can generate small pictures/single objects with ai and then combine them to a full picture with gimp.

[@manhcuong3035]

Artist won't lose their job in near future, for the fact that many people have grudge toward AI art. But as the technology gradually advancing, it will, for sure surpass human in term of quality, speed, quantity and maybe, even surpass the creativity of human. So the artists who work in the industry, their career might be at stake.

[@emperorpicard4901]

@@manhcuong3035 No, artists will simply use the AI tools to make more art, just as the caveman whose job it used to be to smash two rocks together did not loose his job when the hammer was invented, he just used the new tool to smash even more rocks.

[@thegrandnil764]

Bro AI is the most glowie shit ever. I can't believe mental outlaws fanbase simps for AI.

[@manhcuong3035]

@@emperorpicard4901 yeah, it appeared so. But its an issue itself, because for now, even amateurs artist using AI can be on par with pros. And eventually, everyone can make art, and give it a bit more time and art isn't necessary be made by human.

[@LarkyLuna]

My biggest gripe with this is artists having their art added to the databases used to create those AIs without their consent or permission So many ML people create stuff without any concern for privacy and security. It's like they are trying to create a skynet/big brother situation

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

valid point, letting an AI learn from your work is cool and all but if companies start using said material for profit they should at least pay up a little for each artist that allows their work to be studied by the AI.

[@joshallen128]

Is ai generated art copyrightable

[@AtariWow]

too bad, go cry about it.

[@diablo.the.cheater]

That is not a fair point tho, human artists do exactly the same, they learn and get inspiration from every art piece they have seen in their lives and their own art is mostly based on that even if they do not realise, just see caveman art murals, that is what art would look like if artists did not have all other artists artwork as a basis for themselves. AIs do exactly the same, they learn from existing art, the same way humans do, they do not store the existing art in their databses as it is, they store the learning they derived from it, exactly like humans do. Neural network AIs essentially replicate the way humans and animals in general learn. You don't need permission or consent to learn from other people art, why would AIs need consent?

[@jacobyakus8620]

Didn't they use Classics? All the artists are long dead...

[@wallyww6149]

Even though digital artist do have tools that make the work easier, that changes pretty much little in the process of creating. Just as traditional they still have to study anatomy, composition, color theory, 3d forms, gesture, perspective and others. That type of things never really left. What's more a lot do and recommend to practice in traditional when learning some concept. Imo at least, I don't see how the person that asked the ai had to learn any of those things which takes many years to master properly. Im sure ai art should have it's own cathegory. I'm also sure commisioned art is gonna suffer a lot. Commisions is where basically everyone starts to build an art career and the potfolio. Is gonna be tough and many beginners will quit.

[@ThunderDraws]

exactly, beginners are absolutely screwed - it takes at least 5-10 years to get to the level midjourney is at right now; and the mistakes AI makes in AI art will probably be fixed in future iterations. Basically once this stuff is widespread you have to live off of 0 income for 5 years while you compete with AI. Or you embrace AI and include it in your workflow… this is probably what we’ll see a lot in the future

[@pseudoharm]

@@esterbun9356 I hope you are right.

[@lailaallen6285]

@@esterbun9356 I gotta agree with you but idk if it's a good idea by using an ai do all the work for the contest or it's just me idk

[@lailaallen6285]

@@esterbun9356 you not wrong tho

[@Fiwiahdjwiwij]

@@HungryMoosey you’ve kind of missed their point. They literally said that ai still can’t reach that personalised touch a human artist can create, such as in character design for animations and such. Right now it looks like the ai can’t seem to produce a coherent style when in a cartoon or animation medium. I’ll admit ai can create impressive painterly or illustrative pieces, but the cartoonish prompts I’ve seen so far are a miss. You’re wrong in how you compared machines replacing manual labour to ai replacing artists. Manual labour, for the most part, consists of work that is repetitive and predictable. That’s why machines replaced a lot of manual jobs, because they only needed a set amount of instructions to complete that job, whereas art needs someone with a conscience to make active decisions to create their work. And even then, like people have mentioned before, there are specific manual jobs that require a human, simply because the code or programming for the machines are not robust enough to handle the decisions that need to be made for that job. Art is inherently a creative medium and requires a human’s decision, so even if people can roughly generate realistic or painterly art from the ai, there’s still a lot of other art mediums ai can’t generate to a proper extent. Even if ai has mastered the form of realism in concept art like you said, and it grows in popularity, having only that sort of style will just grow oversaturated and generic, which then increases demand in other styles that are more simplified. Simplified, stylised or cartoonish art cannot be done by ai without it looking incredibly messy and odd. I mean have you seen the prompts with yugi muto in deviantart or something? See moistcritikal’s ai art is scary video for context. Just like how writing proper novels with meaningful and coherent stories, ai does not have that capacity or robustness to understand to what a human can. So, after writing my essay, I think I can prove that your comment was actually in fact, wrong, plain and simple. Maybe try looking at other perspectives before you try shutting people down with a ‘I don’t have time for this you’re obviously wrong’. Cheers.

[@littlemoocow]

The steroids analogy works pretty well. I don't care how long it took you to learn AI prompts, it does not come anywhere near the HUNDREDS of hours you have to put in to art to be recognized as even a decent artist.

[@adryncharn1910]

What is considered a decent artist? Can one not sit down and learn how to make good art fairly quickly?

[@atemoc]

I think you misspelled thousands

[@GentlemanCho_gath]

@@adryncharn1910 no… lol

[@user-ck8kp8vb4l]

@@adryncharn1910 no? you know what go just sit down and become a great artist in a weekend. I dare you

[@tamoray7319]

Cope youre getting replaced by A.I

[@Skull19O1]

If an ai bot suddenly start making videos and show how good it is, this dude would be first in line to call it wrong.

[@Actinide5013]

That's it. That's it, you said it all. Some people do have to feel it themselves to tell how dire the situation- and its ethical implications- actually are.

[@CM-dk9xu]

I think this only strengthens his point. It's objectively better

[@Skull19O1]

@@CM-dk9xu ?

[@_.-.]

Found the copping artist

[@foppypoof5195]

@@_.-. You’re just salty that you can’t draw for shit. AI art ain’t replacing us real artists, I don’t know which artist pissed in your cereal, but you are the most miserable person I’ve ever seen. I saw one of your other comments about us apparently holding “beauty hostage” or something like that? Don’t know where you pulled that one from.

[@HoloFizz]

Kinda disheartening seeing people laughing at artists in the comment section while at the same time not realising how much effort it takes to make it by human hands. Art isn't this quick throwaway thing, it shouldn't be. My viewpoint isn't 'cope' either. Ai is a great tool to aid in making art, but to compare a few words which likely took a short time to write versus hours and hours working on a single work from years of practice... these are not the same. I guess people with these opinions are coming from a consumer standpoint rather than a creative one.

[@Do_not_at_me_bro]

Consoomers gonna consoom

[@VVVVVeeector22333]

cope, "artists" are losers, midjourney >>>> Leonardo da Vinci

[@mr.mcklockwork3828]

@@VVVVVeeector22333 Da Vinci was an inventor....

[@Significantharrassment]

@@VVVVVeeector22333 damn the "gigachad" doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable

[@dingdong896]

@@VVVVVeeector22333 who tf let this kid use ipad

[@Jacotomo2222]

As an artist I found this hilarious, I'm not even mad, congrats to the AI. A couple years ago, my uncle, who is an incredible musician, was telling my dad and I that robots were gonna take all the manual labor jobs, and we would all get to do the creative jobs. Ironically, it's the complete other way around! (EDIT) I think people misunderstood my poorly worded comment, which gave off the vibe that I was a heartless bastard who wanted to watch everything burn, that's not the case. The irony of these arts-y farts-y people who was once totally fine with robots taking other peoples jobs now losing their shit because an AI put their career in danger, is what I found funny, not the AI actually taking over, that's concerning. I'm not to worried about it, as I know we'll figure things out, but it's good that people are opening their eyes and seeing all this. ...And yeah, I know regular ol' robots are replacing our workers too, it's just more effort and way more expensive than the AI. It's just easier for an AI to slap together a png than a robot to do a simple task any human can do. I should have probably taken more time writing the original comment, but I was in a hurry.

[@proudalbanianjcdenton7129]

As an artist do you think ai art will just be widely used by people who would Normally steal art?

[@Keirnoth]

The robots already took a big chunk of manual jobs. You guys are next.

[@sairos4057]

@@proudalbanianjcdenton7129 "steal art" Intellectual propriety doesn't exist.

[@ARockRaider]

@@proudalbanianjcdenton7129 if that's the case then it has done a great service for the artistic community! Personally I don't think it can ever fully displace artists, it may change what exactly the artists do but they are creative people by definition so they can figure it out. It may even become a great tool for artists.

[@Retrofire-47]

for now

[@CodeRed001]

I used to be really passionate about photography as a kid. But phones started catching up with SLR cameras. Now everyone has a good camera in their pocket. My passion dried up, I can still take better photos than most people, set up some good lighting and a good camera lens. But it wasn't just that more people had access to cameras that made my passion die off. It was the fact that everyone was taking pictures, the internet is over-saturated with mundane videos and pictures and it's become more obnoxious than ever to see someone recording in public. But you just have to accept that certain things will be less special in the future. I can imagine the first few people that invented and owned cars. Must have felt very special at the time, inventing and discovering new things at a steady pace, but if you brought those people into our time and showed them our traffic jammed highways full of boring uninspiring cars I bet they wouldn't take long to become very disappointed with the outcome of what they loved. When something is finally made accessible to the greater population of a society through technological progress it typically washes away any of the passion and creativity that made it interesting in the first place. Just look at the stagnating giants of the film industry as a example. Even though we now have the ability to create anything using CGI, the kind of movies being produced today are of most peoples opinions way less unique and rely on the nostalgia of the past to excite people. It can sadly feel like the only reason anyone creates art these days is to make money and typically that involves appealing to the largest crowd possible. I think AI art is interesting, but if this sort of thing becomes the new normal I can see how a artist could lose their drive if you saw people paying thousands for this type of work over the more traditional techniques.

[@adrianm7203]

Well said, I completely agree. As things become more mainstream the focus shifts away from the passion and towards profit. At the same time the space becomes increasingly oversaturated with low-skill work that makes it hard to find the real talent that gets buried under piles of mediocrity. The video games industry is another great example of that, game engines like unreal and unity have significantly lowered the bar of entry to the point were almost anyone can "make a game." But as a result there are a huge number of low quality games being made to the point where it's nearly impossible to find good indie games from unknown developers even though such games do certainly exist. When the bar is set high, the only people you see in the space are the most talented and dedicated people. As the bar lowers, the space becomes flooded with mediocrity until it becomes hard for those with real passion to stand out anymore. At that point, like your photography, the passionate people give up and leave. To a large extent this has already happened with digital art but AI tools, like this one, will certainly exacerbate the problem further. If there is a solution to this problem I think it's to disconnect from the mainstream and social media. Find yourself a local group of people you can share your passions with. The internet is a great tool but it often makes everything into a popularity contest where passion and creativity die out because people are too scared to experiment or be authentic. Although even offline if you show someone a photograph or drawing you did the most common response is "whatever, I've seen better on the internet." So perhaps there is no solution. But finding a small group of authentic people to share your passion with is probably your best bet. Good luck.

[@chavaspada]

Cope, democratization and access to creation tools is a good thing. You're just mad that every low earning fool can now compete on a technical level with a snob who spent thousands to buy the "best" equipment.

[@CuteSkyler]

I've certainly become more interested in traditional photography. The Polaroid camera's seem really interesting to me, the fact that it's just a physical photo is just really something I enjoy. Maybe it's just my fetish for anything physical, drawings, games, photos. And since Polaroid is back as a new company and producing, I'm more interested than ever. I do certainly get your gripes with it, I'd even say most artists have that gripe. But you just got to keep doing what you enjoy best, maybe you'll enjoy photography again.

[@CodeRed001]

@@adrianm7203 An even better example from the gaming industry the mobile games market. Cellphones put a handheld gaming console in the hands of everyone, even non gamers. This should have been revolutionary. But instead it was a giant cashgrab, mobile games are responsible for using some of the most dishonest marketing you can possibly see and some of the worst game development ever. Most mobile games are created to exploit the endorphin rush of gambling and gatcha games are the worst culprit. Most are pay to play. Makes me sick.

[@CodeRed001]

@@CuteSkyler I have a love for wet plate collodion photography. But it's really scary and dangerous developing film in a tub full of cyanide.

[@coopmaxxxer325]

I think you are highly optimistic. Think about it - AI art is barely 2-3 years old and its results are already amazing. Jus think what it could accomplish in 10 years? 20 years? AI now struggles with music and writing scripts, but if all it takes is for it to recognize certain patterns - then BOOM! Remember the "three act structure"? What was that bout 7 stories? Artists, musicians, writers - all might be put out of work. I mean, why would you pay writer thousands of dollars when you can just rent a powerful enough AI an have a complete novel in a couple of hours? Why would you need to hire a composer when "Mozart AI" can give you a complete soundtrack in a day? I think that tech nerds don't understand that big companies and governments will use this tech to their advantage. We might live in a world where all of us are Amazon warehouse workers working for 1$ a month, watching digital youtubers with their digital shows generated by some "Content fun AI", listening to a music without an author, watching movies with AI generated actors and scripts written by neural networks. And for those snarky types who write "just learn to code lol": 1) not everyone is ready to spend 3-4 years just to acquire a skill that they have little to no interest in learning. 2)how long do you think will it be until machines learn to code? 20-30 years? Do all of you have deep intricate knowledge of machine language coding or do you honestly think that your frontend piss Python crap jobs won't be taken by an AI? Just think back in like 50 years - cars where done mostly manually. They were designed to last. Nowdays cars, even expensive ones are atrocious, even worse - they are DESIGNED to break down and die so you can have a replacement. All in all - i think AI art is fucking disgusting, just some unfeeling, uncaring, emotionless pile of junk that creepily imitates what a human would do. Porn comissions is the best that it deserves. Imagine petting your dog and suddenly you realize that its not your dog but a robot, who skinned your dog and now wears its pelt and simulates emotions. I don't understand how people who have read books written by real people and saw art drawn by real people can't realize that.

[@Clone_osu1]

This comment is underrated. Im still too lazy to read this sadly

[@Nsquare_01]

This

[@wilnonis]

I agree with you. I see a lot of tech guys telling artists to "cry more" and "cope" and I think that's disgusting. Because their lives and jobs are not YET affected by the AI. Also literally blaming artists for wanting to do art as a job. Saying we only care about art as a monetary and fame thing? Companies will literally use AI to cut labor and spew out "good enough content" they can sell. But if we point that out we also get called ethical warriors who wish for humanity to stop evolving, fun stuff lol! The future was meant to automate the hard and demanding jobs no one wanted to do in the first place. And it's taking the ones we wanted to do. The future sounds more depressing than anything I could have imagined

[@oo--7714]

@@wilnonis niggga bhave you heard of copilot of blueprints in unreal. No one in the tech space cares about ai.

[@JLeppert]

Well, considering most current art is soulless, the AI isn't at a disadvantage.

[@mhavock]

LOL the judges must be blind. That 1st place has detail but no reality to it. I mean, maybe my fake detectors are on by default, but I think most people would look at it and see no real flaws therefore not a human creation.

[@kitsunetengoku1467]

I try man ;-;

[@MrSolidsnake293]

@@mhavock most judges aren't actually interested in art, and its been proven to be purely based on personal tastes every time, so unsurprisingly a lot of judges tastes fall into the most generic "high art" depiction you can get...

[@Tutranmedi]

So agree, NFT shouldn’t be even exist in the first place (not intended for controversial)

[@gaminggamingtm]

True

[@grasswarlock]

No. I get that AI-generated art is genius. By no means should we restrict its development, but to try to show this 1st place win in a "it was fair to some extent!" light is delusional. "Digital artists have an advantage over traditional ones anyways why not mention their advantages" Well mate because the difference between digital art and traditional art isn't as massive as "this dude has to learn line art, composition, lighting, shading, design, and color. The other dude has to write a couple of words" "Writing a prompt takes some extent of skill" Seriously...? You know what else takes some extent of skill too? Choosing your OnlyFans profile username. Picking your clickbait article's meta tags. Writing your scam copypasta and choosing which users to distribute it to. Choosing which NFT characteristics to randomize. Everything takes some amount of skill. But to compare a craft that takes DECADES to master, to some writing habits that can be learned by reading a single "10 AI Image Generation Tips & Tricks!" article, is astonishing to me. Michaelangelo's extremely detailed sculptures weren't loved only because they were beautiful. But because the amount of skill, dedication, and creativity it took to make them was incredible for humans to posses. Anyone can 3D-print a model nowadays. Yet they will never garner the same love and attention Michaelangelo did. Even if they digitally modeled them themselves. That's the way it should be. I'm not an artist. I'm a programmer. But i will always lament a day where the world inches closer into a future where hardwork and dedication are less valuable, and where even the laziest, least charitable, least contributing individuals, can make a fortune out of doing nothing. Your video came off as agenda-ridden. AI always good. Technology always good. Everything is black and white. I advise you to widen your perspective.

[@krunkle5136]

It's very common for tech people to pat themselves on the back and have something against non tech people. Society wide ramifications aren't things engineers are really focusing on.

[@vanci3449]

Someone is salty abt the computer.

[@bucket4202]

I mean he's too far up his own ass to be able to widen his perspective on things, doubt this whole elitist perspective and "AI good" thing he has going on will ever change, while artificial intelligence may be good for a lot of different and highly varying purposes, this is definitely not one of them. Not going to restate what you said in your counterpoints, as they're near perfectly articulated but to add on something new, if AI generated art is continued to be improved upon and advertised human artists will be completely driven out of the picture, why pay for art when you could just generate a concept you'd like to see with a few words? And yeah, some might stick around because of passion but their work won't be recognized as it should be, maybe that won't happen, maybe it will but either way it's still a possibility

[@NoshLambeaux]

Another thing that I don't see mentioned here (I agree with all of the above points), is that this AI was trained using art from humans. Literally millions of art pieces are used to train these AIs, so it's not even as though the AI has "skills" per se, but rather that it is extremely good at mashing together a bunch of pieces that have been categorized into various fields. And while some of the end results are quite a sight to behold, it all still came from someone else's work. So, to give this thing a first place medal is kind of a slap in the face to all of those artists who spent years honing their craft and had their work stolen (no one ever asked or paid them to use the images, which I imagine were ripped from various places such as art station, deviant art, etc.) to create this super collage creator. I also don't see mentioned the fact that a lot of the time this AI art has to be touched up digitally by a human before it starts to look normal. Try it with faces, you have 25 free images (around there I think) on discord for Midjourney. You will see that the eyes point in different directions and some features aren't nearly a symmetrical as if they were created by a human hand. There also, a lot of the time, isn't a coherent thought to a picture. For example, if you look at a human's drawing of a fireside dragon, you can see how they tie in various parts of the work to fit together and maybe add some small details here and there which contribute to the whole piece, adding either a message or that human finesse which makes various art so appealing to look at for hours on end. The AI doesn't achieve this in 99% of the images it creates, and when it does it is usually by mere chance. If you look at some of the reviews for Midjourney, you will see a common thread that says you essentially have "to get lucky" with a prompt, you have to and refine it multiple times. There isn't really skill involved in this, it's more akin to gambling. Which definitely doesn't make it on par with human directed art pieces. All in all these are neat and useful tools, very fun to mess around with, but to say that it is categorically better than humans at creating legit and well thought-out art is laughable.

[@rafario448]

YES, THANK YOU!

[@MatteSevai]

Almost like there’s no point in having an objective contest about completely subjective art

[@quemadurahealy8866]

Finally the truth

[@larphyus7860]

I started to pick up drawing recently as a hobby (more anime/comic style thought). Its just really disheartening to know that everything I'll (hopefully) create, even if it is just for myself, could be done better and quicker by an AI. It makes the proccess of learning how to draw and drawing itself redundant, even thought this is most of the fun. I could just learn how to use an AI and call the result my creation, but that would feel disingenuous, which is the same feeling i get in this chase. Feels like using Aimbot. Is it quicker? Yes. Is it better? Yes. I just removes me from making the "art", which is the entire point for me. Its a great tool, thats detrimental to drawing as a hobby(for me). And who is future AI supposed to learn from, when there's basicly no more new human art created, bc every digital/twitter/insta/youtube creator makes my coffee?

[@Anime-Trash]

Maybe the future AI can make its own AIs to delegate tasks to, that will eventually overtake the AI as well.

[@nova6888]

i haven't seen too much AI stuff in comic/magna style. But that'll surely come too.

[@larphyus7860]

@@Anime-Trash 1. The AI that draws, doesn't code. 2. AI learning from AI pictures won't create new styles that look good, altleat i think so. I've played around with midjourney befor and most pieces looked like only 90% finished and many shapes where not resembeling the real thing e..g chains when not wanting a realistic 3d rendered style.

[@larphyus7860]

@@nova6888 go to the StableDiffusion subreddit and sort by top of all time. Its human+AI but that just means its allready on its way.

[@nova6888]

@@larphyus7860 damn. A.I is better that i thought.

[@Coolio_Ash]

I'm not saying it's the end of art as we know it or anything but I find it incredibly unfair that a person who just put a bunch of words into a computer beat out people who spent hours and hours of work into their submission.

[@andrei4389]

How many hours of work were put into developing computer? Binary system? the linux OS that was running the image generation program? Semiconductors? Creating the electricity that powers it, transporting it? How many men lost their lives to find out exactly what the right combination of physics and magic they need to combine in order to achieve a computer? I find it incredibly unfair that you consider a computer as a given piece of technology and not a fantastic technological marvel. There were many more lifetimes of work put into the computer than all the other participants, combined. Just because someone used a resource better (time), does it mean their end result is not good? Artists are using spoons to clear a path through a mountain. So-called AI comes in with an excavator. At the end of the day, who will do the better job?

[@cthulhufhtagn7520]

You're looking at it backwards. It's making the creation of high art *more* fair by removing the skill limit.

[@xevenxaver4759]

@@andrei4389 Nice words, too bad I'm not reading 'em.

[@moritzwagner4332]

@@andrei4389 that has nothing to do with the individual's work. Every artist works thousands of hours themselves, they don't rely on other people's work.

[@LilacMonarch]

@@andrei4389 The problem is you're attributing all of those things to the benefit of an individual, but that's not how it works. It doesn't matter how much work other people put into making a technology, if anyone can just come up and push a button it does not make that person good at the task. The steroids analogy works well here. It's not fair for some roid-ed up althletes to come in and crush their competition of people that just want to compete with their natural abilities. Similarly it's not fair for anon69 to put a few words in a prompt and have that compete against artists who drew by hand.

[@biomuseum6645]

This isn’t democratizing art, this is democratizing laziness, cheapness, and dehumanization Hope people who value nothing and want everything on a silver plate are happy with this

[@pacifico4999]

The problem here is that the guy entered this piece as if he made it. It's dishonest to hijack a competition for your little "social experiment" and take the prize. AI should be in its own category.

[@DuskEalain]

Yeahhh when it comes to the contest that's my big gripe too. Especially because it was to prove a point to people who had nothing to do with the arguments. It's the equivalent of giving random guests at a steakhouse vegan burgers because you got in an argument on Facebook about meat alternatives.

[@matidfk5171]

@Baxi thats a legal problem too, whos is it? the guy who made the prompt? the ais? the devs?

[@thesenamesaretaken]

If you didn't make the paints and the brushes and the canvas yourself from plants and animals grown on your own land then it isn't your creation.

[@Cneq]

It's not a "little social experiment" it's a massive social experiment and if AI actually becomes a commonplace among traditionally "creative" activities in the next few decades cases like this will literally looked back on as historic moments.

[@ayylmao394]

@@thesenamesaretakenWriting a prompt doesnt make you an artist.

[@Zesuto3]

I don't mind this piece, it's really good, at this point the limitations of an AI generating art are the human writing the prompt, and this is a good prompt, unlike that endless ocean of soulless cyan and purple synthwave looking art pieces that losers keep generating; Like someone I know says "the majority of the AI generated art looks like a rainmeter bg you'd set for 10 minutes then forget about it". That said, As a surgeon I couldn't care less if an AI replaces me because it would greatly benefit mankind, neither would I care as a hobbyist programmer, but as a hobbyist artist and musician it's a bit of a mixed bag of opinions, since those are expressions of humanity, and I believe this is something an ethics board will be discussing sooner or later.

[@monkeysfromvenus]

damn bro surgeon programmer artist and musician? i'm just trying to grill over here

[@Zesuto3]

@@monkeysfromvenus Art and music are very recommended for surgeons as they involve the same coordination skills, line drawing particularly helps you develop a very steady hand. "Hobbyist" can mean a lot of things too, being into something doesn't make you automatically good at them. kek

[@adryncharn1910]

Aren't they all technically expressions of humanity?

[@Sandstimes]

I wouldn't have an issue with any of it if there was some solution to the fact that there will be less and less jobs as time goes on. Even the creative fields we once thought to be "safe". Once machines replace everything, what then? Will all of the money just go to the rich people at the top who own the machines? We need to seriously consider a restructure of how society and government operates beforehand, but the people at the top try to prevent that because they will only benefit from throwing the working class under the bus

[@evandrofilipe1526]

@@Sandstimes dw about that right now, it's pretty distant.

[@inzvy]

Laugh until they'll make a ai that can code

[@samuelkibunda6960]

Bruh 😭

[@thinkbetter5286]

Search Copilot

[@ryanimateon]

i think there is a bit more to the point on "the traditional artist vs digital artist's". AI gives non artist the ability to easily make art, meaning normies are now the new "digital artists". this AI will probably be good enough for some people/use cases, but i think most will realize that they can get better results by commissioning or studying the craft. any art class you take is going to mainly revolve around teachings from traditional artists, even tho we have copy paste, layers and the fill tool, the basics haven't changed much and many digital artists still use software like paint on canvas. just because it takes you 19 hours to paint something as apposed to an ai taking 30 seconds doesn't mean your time was wasted.

[@willaxesawian9242]

using AI > Having to pay Straight up business logic

[@lupalos12345]

@@willaxesawian9242 Eating a bowl of rice > paying for pizza straight up business logic lol

[@user-wv1in4pz2w]

For now, yes, a commission will get you better results, but I expect that soon enough (a decade or so) we'll be at a point where if you can describe what you want to be drawn, AI gets you results as good as any except maybe some of the most skilled artists in the world.

[@ryanimateon]

@@user-wv1in4pz2w my point wasn’t really the commission itself, it’s more so finding someone who knows how to paint traditionally. While we can always argue ai will get better and better, The entire art process takes a long time and not all of it is just busy work that can be easily automated. Ai is amazing and I don’t doubt it’s going to flood the art world with tons of new artists, I do think there will be a divide from those who use it and those who don’t, even if it’s only artists themselves who notice it.

[@Bunuffin]

welp... being a master in the craft and having actual artist do stuff is 100% different, you still meed skill no matter the media... you can copy my art style but that's all you can do, copy

[@captaincronus3958]

:/ artists take years and years of practice, including digital artists skills that you learn traditionally can be applied digitally, and skills that you learn digitally can also be applied to traditional pieces, just in different ways... a lot more goes into it than just "the tools" thats a pretty low blow comparing us who have been drawing our entire lives and growing our styles as artists to the people who literally just put words into a generator is just not the same. finding what words and combinations you have to use to get your image does NOT take decades to learn and does NOT take studies to perfect. takes probably a few hours to make something decent. as for the art contest, i'm fairly certain nobody knew that it was an ai image, not even the judges. people might not see it as that big of a deal, but considering some of what ai is creating right now, i can see smaller art jobs being completely wiped away. stuff like creating simple creature or monster art and im not so sure anyone would be any the wiser. the only thing really preventing this is the fact that nobody can copyright the ai images because it's made from a group of pieces from the actual artists themselves. but it shouldnt be just artists getting nervous about this stuff, lots of other areas are also bridging into automatic areas like coding and such. a lot of people also say that we should be using the ai as tools to enhance our art, but i dunno. never really asked for a tool like that myself, i'm sure some people could find it helpful, but i mostly do commissions and i wouldn't really feel comfortable using an ai on something someone paid for. possibly for my personal work, but i'd much rather learn the actual skill to make whatever i want to make than use an ai still

[@scribblemeeps]

I completely agree to this!!!

[@cyberspyr0]

on point!!!

[@kaiginn9076]

this!

[@zekel.2083]

Absolutely. It's also not just about the final output, especially in a competition. The contest isn't about "who can make the prettiest art". It's an environment designed to challenge and test each participent's disciplien and skill that they've developed over their life, and rewarding that discipline. Having someone who has never touched art as a practice just put some text in an AI and generate a beautiful image, win over all the other contestents, just defeats the whole purpose.

[@_.-.]

C O P E

[@shawnboahene5231]

This is video and these comments are exactly we never get art as good as anything that came before. We really don’t deserve it. The fact that so many people make excuses for this laziness is beyond me. This dude said that typing in the right words is a skill. Google is apparently a skill. We will complain endlessly about prepackaged corporate music but an ai stealing art ideas from other artists a-okay.

[@achmadyanuar9914]

How old are you? Do you have son or daughter? Ai is our (humans) child. As we are growing from our parents knowledge, so does Ai. Ai didn't steal. Do you steal your father linguistic capability? Do you steal your mom skill? Before you begin journey with your phone, there is an agreement first, right? That they will collect data from what you type, what you like, your photos, what you upload,, including art you upload, your music.. What you feel is what our grandma and grandpa feels when they old and they see their children or grand children,, sense of sadness because you will be obsolete, fear of being irrelevant. But hey, that's part of the deal. Do you shed tears for indigenous people? Modern people take their land, if they comply, we kill them. Because what, because we are special 🤣🤣 but now when we are facing with the reality that we aren't that special, it's kinda hurt our pride huh? 🤣

[@Olmeuu]

@@achmadyanuar9914 are you actually comparing the way humans learn things from other to a fucking algorithm mixing together artwork related to what you type in? 💀💀

[@mr.mcklockwork3828]

@@achmadyanuar9914 you basically just said "you will be replaced and you will like it"

[@randoguy7488]

@@mr.mcklockwork3828 He basically projected his own insecurities into a comment. His fear of being irrelevant. Trying to cope by leashing out on strangers trying to get at least some attention in their sad life.

[@oo--7714]

@@randoguy7488 t. Generic pfp

[@tiberiousjc3739]

USA has a law that if an artwork was created by an non human then it cannot be copyrighted. So any image or any creative works generated by anything other than a human is worthless.

[@skylinetv2778]

It should has it's own category, like with TAS in speedruns

[@AdamSmith-qu5bv]

makes me wonder if we'll ever see fully AI generated speedruns. Once an algorithm learns the fastest possible route, it could optimise it way faster than a human, even if they were using save states and slowdown.

[@junechevalier]

And there's the copyright problem, which you failed to mention. AI allows the prompt to be specific about the style of artwork, like "do this in the style of Giger" so what protection do artists have against that?

[@kikc]

Absolutely clown. Artists getting inspired from other art paintings and copying their style while making something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT should be illegal then.

[@junechevalier]

@@kikc You don't understand how it works? Artists getting inspired to create something of their own doesn't infringe upon others copyright, it's called inspiration. Now with AI anyone can infringe upon other people's property because it can do that with no mention of the artists they copy from

[@kikc]

@@junechevalier AI studies the images and then makes something completely different so, you are a disgusting liar

[@InfernalMonsoon]

As someone who did art and wants to get back into it, I think AI generated art is genuinely useful but only as a tool. It can be useful for people to generate anything on the top of their heads and then add the finer details and touches purely as a hobbyist endeavour. But I feel it can also inspire artists to use the images generated to aid them in their own pieces that they want to do completely from scratch, which I feel would be fair game as the artist did all the work themselves, they just sought out a bit of basic inspiration like all artists did albeit from a very unorthodox place, which makes it excellent for artists going through art blocks and want a tool to help fuel the imagination for their future original pieces.

[@joaoaugusto6290]

thats a pretty interesting take,i like it!

[@cesarcastillo7129]

aint that straight out plagiarism

[@LoupBlancEA]

@@cesarcastillo7129 suppose ai generated art could be copyrighted, then supposing a powerful enough supercomputer, they could copyright everything that hasn't been made yet. Since that is absurd, then ai art shouldn't legally have a rights holder, so it cannot really be plagiarized. This is only a legal argument though, morally it's probably still wrong

[@Mister_Clean]

Just wait until corporations start copyrighting AI generated art pieces

[@tantejunko]

I do that. I mess with DALL-E mini (or Craiyon) to generate ideas, poses, and designs for my drawings. It can get pretty decent lol

[@TomlinMike]

hacking the algorithm for you, boss.

[@MentalOutlaw]

thanks fam

[@newself3180]

I don't have a problem with ai art. The problem is with the fake artists that will cheat by using ai then say that they are better at art than real artists.

[@oredaze]

I am going to be honest here - I am one of those doom and gloom people. Look at it from my perspective, I am stuck at a shitty job that I hate. I always felt like my place in the world was as a digital painter. Didn't do it, but the reason is off topic. This year I resolved to finally get it going because my job (and pretty much all other) was giving me depression. I don't want to kill my self in the future. It's just what my character is like. I don't want to live a meaningless life, etc. So I resolved to become a digital painter. You can imagine my feelings when I learned of midjourney. Yes... Imagine paying lots of money to a professional to make something in a week and then imagine using a tool like this. Takes minutes, money is not comparable too. What do you think companies will choose? I have heard that there were already book covers made by AI. This is just the beginning. I am still going to try to do it, but at this point it feels like I am gambling with my life. Unlike the truck drivers that are supposedly going to lose all their jobs to self driving cars, I am not in it only to make a living, so I can't do something else...

[@GensokyoBoySlvt]

😴

[@gameragodzilla]

Handmade stuff will always be around simply because no industrial, machinery based process will have the attention to detail and craftsmanship that handcrafted stuff can bring. You can see that with food (assembly line prepared TV dinners vs. gourmet chef prepared dishes), guns (production line 1911s vs. a nicely handfit custom gun), knives (off the shelf stuff from Amazon vs. a handmade knife from a skilled knifemaker) etc. Even decades of improvements in technology haven’t changed that fact. What’ll likely happen is the consumer trade stuff will be industrial production, churning out lots of quick, cheap, decent quality stuff, and the high end handcrafted things will be luxury items made for enthusiasts. But there are always people out there who will buy them.

[@oredaze]

@@gameragodzilla Well, I am changing my mind recently. Turns out I wanna do this, even with all the AI struggles.

[@simpleprogrammingcodes]

Yeah, it's just the beginning. In the future we will have movies written by robots.

[@JustKoyomi]

something most people doesnt seem to realize, is that art-related profesions aren't the only thing that is going to end up overtaken by AI and robots, in the past many jobs that were attributed to human workers have been relegated to machines (mostly in the are of manofacturing and industries), however the more the technology advances we can start to see this happen in many other areas. This is just the beggining of a really distopic future, and i dont think we can really stop it.

[@destructivforce2894]

I'm not sure automation will directly lead to a dystopian future tbh. The tools can be used for something good or something bad, it's really up to how it's used.

[@silversforest]

@@destructivforce2894 it will surly crash before it gets better if it can get better

[@sisyphus_strives5463]

First we automated labor, then we will automate thinking itself.

[@lv1543]

@@destructivforce2894 how the fuck do you think its going to be used?

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

@@sisyphus_strives5463 at which point we're free to do as we please, and humans aren't much for sitting around doing nothing all day so it'll loop right back to people making art as a hobby.

[@enough2715]

It won in the digital division. Not traditional, which you're trying to pose int the thumbnail.

[@unveiledwithouttears1370]

I love the technology but i do feel for the artist out their pouring their souls and heart into their passion. I still love you guys and will forever respect your work above A.I anyday. Dont ever give up creating art.

[@victorhugo-qs3bs]

Nah most of them just use art as propaganda

[@GeorgeFosberry]

"Starve and die for muh feelings".

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

@@victorhugo-qs3bs schizopilled, everything i don't recognize or like is probably made by the deepstate shadow cabal!!!!

[@tsiazhs9631]

@@victorhugo-qs3bs “most” - you must have not seen a lot of art? because this is such a bizarre generalization

[@emmanuelchavez7748]

​@@victorhugo-qs3bs "any art I don't like is propaganda 🤓😡"

[@abc-bu8zb]

Literally all yall missed the point. It’s an art competition for artists, not for AI…

[@GeorgeFosberry]

It is you who missed the point. Maybe you'll understand when AI becomes better than humans at actually _living_ its life in a meaningful way.

[@kit2691]

as an artist i disagree digital art is just as hard as traditional and i have a lot of experience in both

[@gingercyclops4397]

Traditional is harder, if it wasnt then an AI shouldn't be able to output digital art thats better then 99% of digital artists

[@HoloFizz]

Yes, they're similar and just as difficult as each other. The process and the capabilities of each medium differs a bit, but that's it.

[@kit2691]

@@gingercyclops4397 ai can literally output traditionally styled pieces as well what the fuck are you talking about

[@kit2691]

@@gingercyclops4397 plus how hard a thing is isnt defined by how good an ai is at doing it

[@sk.9857]

I LOOOOOVE HUMAN EXPRESSION BEING COMMODIFIED thanks for fast forwarding the dystopia as usual tech bros

[@Flavor190]

I hate to break it to you but human expression was commodified many years ago

[@heinoustentacles5719]

@@Flavor190 1992 to be specific.

[@chavaspada]

CompSci CHADS schooling the art freaks.

[@Retrofire-47]

@@heinoustentacles5719 reference to what?

[@heinoustentacles5719]

@@Retrofire-47 1992 is a cool number.

[@WisteriaTheMysteria]

I'd say Digital art just has easier access to materials and can't be counted as not doing the work while A.I. is just the A.I. doing all the work while the person does nothing except write in a prompt.

[@KoongYe]

Downplaying digital artists because the process of making an art piece is easier than traditional is quite stupid. They need just as much training on basic fundamentals as traditional artists. Digital art is a tool not a replacement. Traditional artists can use digital art medium and vice versa.

[@pollbun7490]

It’s pretty shitty tho that people who put effort into their art lost to a glorified google image search curator

[@jimster1111]

get good homie. those people have the same amount of sympathy from me as 21st century coal miners.

[@MentalOutlaw]

typing those 5 words into craiyon.com took alot of effort :)

[@nac9880]

@Bully peter your momys' tape?

[@radioreactivity3561]

Cope.

[@astrovation3281]

You are clearly uneducated in the way that image generation like this works.

[@YummyAnimations]

The two braincells needed to think of a sentence is not comparable to creating art from scratch. I'm all for more cool shit being out there no matter how it's created, but being unable to distinguish between dozens of hours of labour and typing one sentence is concerning and pretty disheartening

[@riainisgar3008]

It's alright if you use AI for reference for your own art to stem ideas. Purely because Google is fully all copyright all the pictures. But to copy and paste it is not.

[@Mr.McWatson]

Digital painting isn't easier, in some ways its more complicated in a lot of ways because you have everything all at once. And tools that only exist in the digital domain. Other than that the principles are the same. But it streamlines the workflow (no cleaning brushes) and reduces costs of buying paints. Ai is a completely different ballpark (depending how it's used), since it doesn't use any of the principles of using your human hands to push colours around. It's effectively ramming pre existing images together at high speed until it stumbles onto a result with basically no human input.

[@cubed.public]

It more or less depends, for the images that he showed, digital painting are easier. Though I will say that mastering digital painting can be equally or harder with the much more tools that are given. Hard to compare though, both require different skills to master, throw one guy at the other form and they'll have trouble. I will say that if you start from the beginning and try and recreate a piece, the digital form would probably finish faster.

[@defaulted9485]

The more tools you have, the more proficiency and skill ceiling achievable. As much as I dislike AI for enabling scam in a starving artist commission market, artists could achieve more with more tools given to them. Its the human nature being economic and efficient instead of respectful with others, that I'm at odds with.

[@gingercyclops4397]

A result that is objectively BETTER than 99% of what modern digital artists can make by hand. Its all human input, designed and created by programmers incomprehensibly smarter then artists

[@Mr.McWatson]

@@gingercyclops4397 What are you defining as "better"? It's good at essentially plagiarizing. "Incomprehensibly smarter" - looool.

[@Mr.McWatson]

@@defaulted9485 I'm hoping it will just be another tool for digital artists like the filters option in PS. The entire art area is one area where we don't need machines replacing humans. Art has been an expression of the human soul for thousands of years, why are we trying to outsource that?

[@Jon-ko3vv]

Arts gay ai can have it

[@madladdion8955]

Im printing a screenshot of this comment and hanging it on my wall

[@mindless_drift]

Lmao

[@whirled_peas]

Halt right there. That’s just what a robot would say. Complete this captcha.

[@bigfergus2787]

I think that in the near future, art for corporations will be generated by ai. However if a company wanted a unique artstyle, they would have to employ a human artist at least temporarily that would draw a few examples that the ai can learn off of and use as it's base style when used to generate more art.

[@briannaalejo9226]

This. I’m a CS student and an artist at heart. All companies need to do is import styles of an artist they want the model to learn from and boom. They have a style they want in their art. That’s pretty scary. The new thing you need to master is prompt writing.

[@vanthursday]

The guy doesnt deserve the award. The AI did. 😅

[@davr9724]

I saw a comment on a video about Dalle-2 a while back that said "Why can't AI researchers make an AI to do something useful like solving problems or something?". As someone that is in data science it made me kind of sad. The problems we want to solve the most have the least amount of data to train a model for. In comparison training a large transformer to generate pictures is more straightforward.

[@talkysassis]

I've had that problem with a research with correlations on drug dependence and some diseases. Mostly because the people who would provide the data omitted useful information for obvious reasons.

[@half_real]

They're doing that with the protein folding AIs, and I think they've discovered some new medicines with AI too. I think that just gets less attention from normies because it's more complicated to understand.

[@Enju-Aihara]

When do you think AGI will appear?

[@badreddinekasmi8919]

Well I think you also should put yourself in their shoes. As artists we are basically required to market ourselves on the net, we already are treated like a joke, many artists barely make ends meet even if they are highly skilled. Some of the bigger freelance artists online barely make 1000-2000 euro a month. Then comes in researchers, they scrape data from all over the net, trillions of images, petabytes of data. Without the explicit consent of anyone involved in the creation of those images. At first that is used to create AI for research. All's good. Researchers are protected under fair use. A few months later the AI is getting really good it's a bit worrying, but it's still not a product. A year later you learn about Midjourney, you learn that it's a product that is good enough to compete with you while you've been struggling to make any revenue off of your trade. It's super cheap, and it shits out art in less time than your coffee break. You learn that certain companies are already jumping on the chance to lay off their cover artists for articles, and others companies are opening their doors without concept artists. And so now you learn that the very fact you tried to make a living off of art by marketing yourself through the net is being used against you, to train models that perform your job, faster, cheaper, and less reliably but nobody cares about that. Now you dig a bit more and find that a derivative of stablediffusion (a better ai than midjourney) can recreate artstyles of living artists. And that one of its creators is a dude that worked on NFTs and that scraped your art without your permission to sell it last year. The research itself isn't the issue, the issue is that nobody in the scientific community raised the ethical dillema of scraping art to create a tool that very obviously was going to be put into the market to compete against the same people whose art was used without their consent to create said tool. That is the part that nobody asked for.

[@AndrewScott1337]

@@half_real Oh yeah dude, my biologist buddy told me that that was a HUGE advancement in biology. It was basically an impossible problem before AI.

[@HappyLittleBoozer]

This revolution already happened back during the dawn of machine fabrication. Our newfound ability to mass produce useful objects, like say chairs, didn't render chairmakers obsolete - it instead rarified them, making their craft all the more desired and expensive, at the cost of depriving of work all those chairmakers who were making chairs that are just "good enough" by rising severely what that phrase meant and making infinitely cheaper everything below it. The same will happen in art. Artists will remain unhurt; those that have a vision, a style, a use or even a will within their art. But the common "art makers", mass producers of simple images and pornography making a meager living through comissions will find their comissions dried up.

[@Do_not_at_me_bro]

That's a really good take for AI. If AI became industry standard for the art industry then the art industry as is today would become niche. Once upon a time GameCube was mainstream, now with it being overshadowed by the WII and Switch, people place their value in Gamecube stuff because it's become a niche, and individual games can sell for hundreds of dollars, while new switch games can sell for $60.

[@seafoam6119]

Spot on. Ai raises the bar and only makes the better artists more valuable. It weeds out trash.

[@derrickjohnson4952]

Who’s to say that the companies that own the A.I program don’t hire the same artists it “replaced” to help make the A.I better than other competitors & now artists make MORE money because they get made everyone the program is used whether or not it’s their are referenced

[@Iron_Cutlass]

Im going to kind of disagree with digital art being easier, since it really depends on what you are looking for. If you want consistent and solid colors, lines, etc; digital art is easier, however, digital art lacks the ability to create texture with ease. Traditional art typically has a lot more texture since it is naturally put in through the resources used, using a paintbrush applies the texture of the brush or using a pencil applies a texture based on the paper and the pencil itself; digital art requires you to manually input texture since digital art's main strength (or weakness in this regard) is consistent and solid colors, lines, etc. Ive seen the argument of "just use digital brushes you get online", which works to an extent, but most of the time you have really process and layer you art a lot to get a desired look. And also this isnt even considering how for some niche cases, you might not even be able to find a brush that fits your scenario and art style. I feel like the best way of putting it is that you cant really treat digital art and traditional art as if they are the same thing, since they both fundamentally work and feel differently and use completely different mediums for expression. Overall, in regards to the video, I think the AI generated art thing is really neat, but I also feel like it really needs to be within it's own field of art, this way it can get recognized and treated as a separate thing in comparison to what humans make. I can maybe even see this being it's own field of study in the future or something cool.

[@galvangahunia2195]

He isn’t an artist, he’s speaking on a subject that he has no knowledge on

[@Iron_Cutlass]

@@galvangahunia2195 Hence why I made the comment in the first place. Providing perspective is always good.

[@LakkiTunrung]

BFPXZ (don't mind just bookmarking)

[@HoloFizz]

Thankyou for one of the few nuanced comments I've read. Most of it is people 'dunking' on artists becoming obsolete, in a completely heartless way. And yeah, it is difficult to make textures with the digital medium. Often means slowly tweaking pixel by pixel and hoping the end result looks like something other than a solid smooth colour. Textured brushes are often pay walled too when paying for the art program in the first place was not cheap, assuming you were lucky to find a program that wasn't a subscription (f u photo shop). I think one of the hardest I've done is fur. Lots of repetitive motions that can hurt your hand.

[@FayN_]

@@HoloFizz people often not care about something that doesnt influence their life in a bad way that's why people often have less empathy over someone problem. and there is also the lack of understanding of the topic that making certain problem seem not that kind big of a deal. yeah, it sometime piss me off if that kind of people with lack of understanding talk about other people passion n feel absolutely right about it, but oh well they aren't artist in the first so they wouldn't understand. it's not big of a deal to them. i mean, traditional art and digital art both is difficult in their own way, there is still "human" that render things manually, pouring ideas into art piece. u still need artistic skill to do em, while AI u only need knowledge related to art style and certain writting undertanding to input prompt. while he argue u still need artistic value, well yes but u don't really need artistic skill to do AI art. like even elementary school can do it n probably can generate art as good as this "AI artist" since it's mostly base on luck. he also discredited artist so much that he might not understand that this AI work because there is database of thousand year old knowledge about artist and their art work as refrence. it's not as simple as music autotune, it's even worse than that.

[@hasin3412]

Chess is an amazing case study of AI & humans interacting in the same domain. It was though that chess ais would destroy chess. but, rather it enhanced the game. Even though chess AIs and humans don't play together in most competitive games. Humans players use chess AIs to expand their understanding and to see the board from a different perspective. AI only competitions are a marvel in how they play the game - and are an absolute delight to analyses from a computer science, AI and chess perspective. Human only completions are vastly more popular to audiences compared to AI only competitions. If this case study is anything to say about AIs become better than people - it shows that both AI & humans can co-exist; while enhancing the domain.

[@AdityaKumar-xo8zl]

Agreed, but there's also the fact that two engines clashing at the highest levels make moves and see things that we simply don't understand, and not knowing what's happening gets real boring as a spectator. At least in human chess there's a better player, i.e the engine there to analyse stuff which the commenters can rely upon, and the games tend to be within the gasp of human comprehension... But put Leela and Stockfish together and the result is simply beyond us.

[@txorimorea3869]

The old engines make it boring and then Alpha Zero started to play like Lelouch, this art AI is not even in its final form.

[@khlorghaal]

chess AIs are an entirely different category of software, they arent really comparable at all from a technical perspective

[@sunla]

To be honest, I never liked art contests. I don't like competing with other artists. It's too subjective to really make much sense, and AI winning an art competition just proves to me that the judges aren't paying much attention. Plus, poor sportsmanship is commonplace in those sorts of competitions. Just more reason not to parttake

[@eliescobis9922]

fun fact: Ai art can't be copyrighted so nobody actually owns it. also fun fact: if you work from ai will look remotely like some big corpo image (that you probably don't even know) you are getting 100% sued

[@JonnyHorseman]

>nobody actually owns it And you VILL be happy!!

[@eliescobis9922]

@@JonnyHorseman yes nobody actually owns the "raw" version of the AI image How can you prove that actually you made it? You can't, it doesn't even have specific style that people can recognize, also it doesn't have any signature or it borrowed signature from other artist XDXDXD

[@Maebbie]

Time to mint such artwork as NFT

[@omlo9093]

Bored Apes on Yacht Club, hyper-realistic, dramatic lighting and shadow, holographic ultra-rare Japanese anthropomorphic chimpanzees

[@joshallen128]

@@omlo9093 is it really weird I'd buy that for a dollar on a mug

[@maoa-cdh1389]

Holy fucking shit!!!! We need John Connor ASAP!!!

[@thegroi]

Holy hell why are there literal shitbrains in the comment section? Have you guys ever drawn something from heart? I am an artist myself, I put my heart into my drawings with an objective in mind and my emotions drive it through. How can it be that a machine with no understanding of pain, happiness or love can deserve something better than me when I give it all? It's just a generic picture simulating to be a well composed piece, but it's not art. Art can be applied to music and writing too, because those things involve creativity and emotion as they come from humans themselves, so why can a machine make art when it's not a human?

[@thinkbetter5286]

Most of these people are insane, like, literally.

[@pravum3150]

The argument is that the "AI" isn't making the illustration, it is only the tool and an "artist" is required to put the prompts and do the actual thinking. Personally, I don't care for this argument. Art is something deeply attached to the human soul. It's an output of life and no AI can replace simply because inside the machine there is no heart that beats. It's progressive in a technological sense, heck I'm still in disbelief it exists, but this kind of progress will make humanity a bunch of lazy consumers to the corporations and groups that will certainly abuse this technology.

[@thegroi]

@@pravum3150 you sort by recent comments and there are people either supporting this or calling artists shit. "You're all just mad because an AI is 100 times better than you" and I'm quotting this from last night word by word, and I'm currently in uni. Are these real human beings? It disheartens me to watch the reality we're in, in which 70% of the human population prefer to trash people who express their hardships through a method of craft. AI works great as a tool, I can look for "konata izumi smokes weed" into dalle mini and reference from there, but it's just a reference. How come there is not enough common sense to rationalize that this is just a tool to help artists?

[@kikc]

@@thinkbetter5286 cry harder. Lower prices? Faster images? Of course and I would prefer AI over humans

[@thinkbetter5286]

@@kikc Proving my point.

[@prathamshenoy9840]

This is like Choosing sports to be your profession Working hard early in the morning, late at night and in between Giving up junk food and eating healthy Getting periodic health tests done Practising everyday, tearing your muscle by doing more than the previous day, Then at the competition, you give it your all only to lose your prize… To a machine..?

[@bingbang5476]

Work smarter not harder lol

[@mr.mcklockwork3828]

@@bingbang5476 no compassion these days smh

[@sevvv2929]

@@bingbang5476 you are brain dead

[@DrinzenDrawz]

Some of the comments here are making me feel extremely depressed, like alot of people genuinely don't give a shit when it comes to the artists who have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours into honing their skills. Both traditional and digital art is incredibly difficult to master. The amount of apathy is sickening, honestly makes me disgusted.

[@mafukun]

Then stop reading

[@watching..657]

Damn. If I only knew I've been wasting years of my life trying to make an art that shows what i feel, i would've just ended myself tbh.

[@Martorfunk]

I'm both a programmer and artist and I have to be honest. I just found this completely disgusting, this is not like digital art that gives you plenty of perks and quality of life while still needing to put on the work, this is just coming up with ideas and try till it seems like what you want, sorry but there is no effort or skill, just luck and patience. I never understood that need to automate everything and all that art just seems wrong, there is something on it that I just can't take and makes me feel ill.

[@DrakusLuthos]

Same here man. What makes it worse is that since this is neural network based, this is basically just a mash-up of actual artists’ pictures.

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

i think it opens an avenue for easier expression of visual concepts for people who aren't artistically inclined. on a deeper level the AI falls flat, it can make pretty pictures but they don't mean anything, they don't express much more then.. just the image itself really. anyone can take a pretty picture but those pictures you made with friends or on your own trip are that much more meaningful then just some nature photo you found on google.

[@Martorfunk]

@@isaacthesharkwolf9038 I agree a lot on your take really, cause I'm simply not made for music, I don't have the ear or coordination for it, so I can get the appeal of having stuff that helps you a lot in the process of making something of your own and let your imagination fly and express yourself, but at least I still haven't find a software or AI that simply makes you a song of your like. Tho I think your take is really well thought and you might actually be right, tho I wonder how this will affect certain areas of the art industry, more in regards to big companies.

[@GeorgeFosberry]

I wonder why did you become a programmer in the first place if idea of creating a strong AI ( something that humans dreamed of since ancient times) feels disgusting to you.

[@Martorfunk]

@@GeorgeFosberry cause I never said it. I said I don't understand why automate all with AIs, and I can see them working but they aren't my field really, not interested. I did it cause is one of the only jobs here that pays well and may give me a chance to get out. Mainly cause that but also cause I enjoy doing it and solve problems. Also is in some way a from of creativity, that's why I focus on web design. And not cause humanity always liked AIs means I have to do too

[@bradenculver7457]

I do think it’s a little annoying treating an ai generated work just like a human made work of art. It feels like a different medium, much like you wouldn’t enter the beautiful photograph you took of a sunset into a contest for oil painting. A part of art is appreciating the skill and creativity that went into making it. You watch a dude do some arrow trick shot, shooting an arrow through a bunch of hoops, that’s impressive because of the skill that went into it. You watch a dude set up a machine that does the same thing, yea it may also be impressive but not the same way. They’re just not the same.

[@nobafan7515]

Yeah, but like what he said I expect it to be only accepted in ai generated art in the future to isolate different skill sets.

[@bradenculver7457]

@@nobafan7515 yea that’s what I’m saying as well

[@Ravyn195]

I mostly agree, but I personally believe in order for something to be art it need to have emotions, and self expression behind it. AI generated images don't, that's why I don't call them AI generated art. The "art" that it makes is entirely soulles, because it doesn't know emotion, it only knows binary. There should be contests for AI generated images if people want them, sure. But I don't think they should be classified as art contests. They should be their owm specific category.

[@nobafan7515]

@@Ravyn195 I'm sorry, but I disagree. Unless I see the artist making the painting I cannot find any emotion in any image. I might as well ask if they had eggs for breakfast, and psychoanalyze how that affected their work.

[@bradenculver7457]

@@nobafan7515 ngl, that’s a you thing. For a lot people who do enjoy art, looking at works of art brings to mind different emotions, from what the painter felt to how it makes you feel. Look at a Van Gogh, and with a little bit of background knowledge you can begin to see how his life and emotion manifested in his work. You may not appreciate it, and that’s absolutely fine you can enjoy art purely for its aesthetic purposes, but that’s not how everyone enjoys it. It’s less “psychoanalyzing” and more empathizing.

[@yum2735]

I think AI-generated art and commissioned art are a good comparison. It's like asking a great artist to draw something for you. The result will turn out very different from what you imagined but in the end it might look very good and much more skillfully crafted than anything you could imagine. And just like with a commission, the resulting art will vary greatly depending on the AI used for the entered prompt. I don't think commissioning the art makes you the artist though, it just limits and guides the vision of the artist, in this case the AI. In that sense, taking credit for the art the AI generated seems misleading to me and doesn't belong in an art contest. You could argue that the prompt is a different form of art altogether but we don't credit the commissioners for works of art of the past either. Allowing AI generated art in the contest and then crediting the AI as the artist and the human as the commissioner might be a solution. But treating AI-generated art as a new form of art seems to be the best way of handling the situation to me. Furthermore, the prompts of the examples in your video are much shorter than the input an artist typically gets from a commissioner, that's why most AI-generated art seems to lack fine details, especially unexpected ones. This means that many prompters have a very limited vision of what they want the AI to generate. The endless discussions about composition and other elements of art by art critics? None of that matters, if it wasn't envisioned by a human and I doubt anyone cares what the AI "thought" when it processed the prompt. Art will get very boring and mostly meaningless this way but I guess one could argue that none of that matters as long as the result is pleasing to the eye. At least it's a very cheap way of commissioning art.

[@flow185]

So putting comissions artist out of work

[@antoniolewis1016]

Fairness never matters in these competitions. Winning does. LeBron James is 6 foot 9 and that's not fair to everyone else playing basketball with him.

[@Shinesart]

That's what I think too. The AI in this case should get the prize because it does every work even upscaling AI. The guy didn't do anything to call his art. He's just a client. I'm an artist myself and I like to do everything by myself. And I can call myself as artist for that piece because I did it. If I want to use AI, I would just get the concept or colour as a base line. Not use AI only for start to finish especially in an art competition.

[@chaosmonkey1595]

Marcel Duchamp settled it over 100 years ago by literally just choosing everyday objects to put in his gallery that this can be indeed considered art. (His work is worth millions) Also you cannot compare just giving an artist 1 commission with giving an artist thousands of commissions and then finetuning how you word those commissions to get exactly what you want.

[@chaosmonkey1595]

@@Shinesart Marcel Duchamp literally became a world renowned artist over 100 years ago by just choosing everyday objects and putting them in his exhibitions. In that sense a client is absolutely an artist as well. His tool is just the artist itself instead of the paint brush being the tool of the artist. The debate about if the amount of work put into art has any bearing on it being good art was settled a century ago - it doesn't matter. (Also people are not just putting in one prompt, but thousands, and finetuning them. So it's far different than just comissioning one art piece. But as I explained, even if it was just one prompt, it could still be considered great art.)

[@jl6723]

I think that the introduction of AI producing art will have another one of those revolutions that occur in the art world, wherein the ways people judge art are distorted once again. Once artists realize that what they make is less desirable than what an AI makes, they will change and begin trying to figure out what they can do as artists that AI can’t. This will probably result in display hopping to realms that AI isn’t tuned for.

[@silversforest]

What won’t ai be able to do though

[@technic1285]

Is this what that "AI art will save artists" video that's getting recommended to me is about?

[@Pandaalifter]

@@silversforest Hentai

[@silversforest]

@@Pandaalifter nothings stopping it

[@AtariWow]

@@Pandaalifter Clearly you haven't played with Stable Diffusion (very powerful open source txt2img ai). I've already seen tons of near perfect NSFW content made with it... Most of it seems to be actresses though. Lots of people horny generating nude Emma Watson.

[@jimron369]

Basically an art tool for people that are good with words.

[@blix17]

Reminds me of people who get degrees in the language the were born speaking thinking they are the greatest beings on the planet.

[@CompanionCube]

The AI is not the problem, the problem is that there is a competition about ART

[@khlorghaal]

all the other problems are from commercialism and corporate exploitation of artists, has nothing to do with the tool

[@pluto8404]

To be fair the contest was neck and neck, 2nd place was a human entry of a banana taped to a wall.

[@rahulramteke3338]

That's why "art" industry needs to be undermined severely by the superior AI generated art

[@lukaspistek7642]

This was digital art competition

[@SurealG]

I really hate these kinds of ai imo most artists don't care what goes on in the fine arts world because it's stupid hard and arbitrary to get into that huge bracket where you make bank these robots if development goes steady are really going to effect the majority of artists

[@flow185]

Same Its like 90% of artists didnt exist in their eyes.

[@TheRealTorG]

If the boomers judging the art at the state fair couldn't recognize this as ai trash art, it's on them.

[@AelfricBlack]

Born too late to explore earth Born too early to explore space Born just in time to witness the death of art and meaningful stories

[@chavaspada]

art has been dead for decades fam.

[@sosopwsi829Jjw9]

@@chavaspada *millenia

[@TexanMiror2]

Just wait until someone makes a fully automated AI-controlled "mental outlaw" video channel copy, by downloading and analyzing all your videos, and then gains more subscribers than you have! Not so funny anymore, then?! (I'm joking - really good video! But seriously, the data-stealing aspect of "generating" AI art is a real problem. It's basically commercial usage of digital images from the internet, without anyones consent. Ultimately there will be no justice for digital artists here, because it's just like you said: the profession will survive in some way, and the existing artists will become more efficient; but, less and less artists will be needed for things like corporate logos, UI design, illustration art, concept art, porn, etc. which means many independent artists will be put out of business - more than already have, due to outsourcing to 2nd world countries.) Also, another point: Some people downplay the impact on art business by making comparisons to tradework like woodworking, where highly skilled people still survive alongside mass-produced items ... I guess none of these people remember that carpenters for example were put out of business in masses by the invention of modern mass-produced plywood furniture during the 20th century? My own grandfather had to give up his trade, and work in a factory, because of this.

[@linusgoblin]

But... Technically that's emulating what humans do, look at art and thru conscious or unconscious means come up with their own. When the model has been trained with these images the data used to render pictures is not images it learned from, its code. I agree tho, the legislation need to be updated. Capitalism is soul less, if there is a more efficient, cheaper path, thats what society will take..

[@chaosmonkey1595]

The examples of people losing their trade because of innovation and automation are nearly endless, your grandfather is in good company. That tale goes back to the stone age, and will probably be going on until AIs take over every single job. (or humanity crashes and burns and we return to the stone ages and the cycle begins anew) Also, like Linus Goblin said, the AI just does the same thing that humans do when learning from other artists. The difference is not the method, just the scale of it.

[@son_guhun]

So, you artificially limit AI research for a few generations, so that there is enough digital artwork to use that is in the public domain? Smells like a very shitty solution and pretty moot complaint as long as the generated images can't be traced back to any single work and deemed derivative.

[@ihatecabbage7270]

is a matter of time

[@thisismambonumber5]

2 months old video and coomer crayon is already churning out r34, god bless stable diffusion

[@rhett7143]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. The jump from digital art is a completely different leap to AI generated art. Digital art isn't just a new tool, it was a generational leap in the medium in general. Video games would not be anywhere close to where it is today without it. Yeah, sure it makes things easier, but at its core, you still have to have strong fundamentals. And in some aspects, its actually harder because some art styles and mediums (e.g. 3d models) just straight up can't be mimicked traditionally and requires specialized knowledge and experience, further increasing the skill ceiling. AI generated art doesn't open up a vast ocean of new possibilities like digital art does. It also does not match the amount of effort and skill required for traditional and digital art. Anyone can write word prompts and test them, and although creating the AI may have a high skill ceiling it absolutely pales in comparison to all the work of the talented artists that are being used to train the AI. Not to mention a lot of these AIs do not have the permission of the artists to use their work for training their models.

[@youtubeaccount6235]

How dare you look down upon prompters! shake my head They worked really hard!1!!!1! Even if they don't need to know a thing about - Lighting - Shading - Composition - Perspective - Anatomy - Colour theory They're just as valid as any other artist!!1!!!! /s

[@son_guhun]

I love this argument of "these AIs do not have the permission of the artists to use their work for training their model". So you want to artificially limit AI development for generations so that we have enough digital art in the public domain (due to extremely heavy-handed copyright laws that exist today) to not step on anyone's toes? So it's just fine and dandy to screw artists 100 years from now with the work that you create today?

[@ForgottenFafnir]

@@son_guhun While I get your point, that wasn't the crux of his argument? Just something thrown on at the very end. And personally I do think permission should be given by the artists first. Just on a moral basis. There's nothing saying you can't take a existing piece of media and warp it into something new and original. I mean... literally every Fandom, with fanfictions, original characters, and AUs do that without permission from Disney or whoever (Disney is even more touchy about their work than artists too). But a lot of people don't enjoy having their work 'plagiarized' (heavy exaggeration) or 'stolen' (less exaggeration), especially in the art world. So taking the extra 10 minutes to ask isn't a huge demand. There's a lot of artists with art, so people saying no isn't going to hurt your plans to create a AI Picasso in the long term. Also yeah Copyright Laws Suck. Again, Disney hates people touching their stuff, so they pay billions to extend the deadline, so now it's like... 70 something years past the creators Death or something? Not even its original date of creation either. One of many painful facts in current life. Hopefully it'll get fixed one day

[@son_guhun]

@@ForgottenFafnir In my case, I fundamentally disagree that there is any moral obligation from the AI developer's part to ask for permission, considering just how transformative the derivative work is (art -> AI). Especially if the AI model is then made open-source and free. This is coming from someone who is very aligned with the FOSS movement though, and in my experience this is not really the mentality most artists I know have about their work. The most popular example would probably be Lovecraft, who allowed and encouraged anyone to use elements from his work, even for commercial purposes. I dread a reality where only institutions with a lot of money or power can get permission for enough assets in order to create capable AIs. I'd much rather this technology be made available to the general public. Luckily most jurisdictions seem to agree and are adapting copyright law to make exceptions for training AI models (or, in Common Law jurisdictions such as the US, establishing precedent that it is an exception). Though my guess is that they are not doing this on any sort of moral grounds, but just to allow their local AI tech to compete with the rest of the world's. As for the rest of the OP, I don't have much to comment about it. I didn't want to challenge it in general, at the time I just wanted to tackle the question of permission specifically because I'd seen it echoed a lot throughout this comment section. That's probably why I was a bit snarky. Consider that I yielded to anything else that the OP said.

[@ForgottenFafnir]

@@son_guhun All good. I'm not insisting that it be done. In my case my artist friends arent a fan of their art being used without permission. Especially one who discovered some people were trying to replicate their art directly through a AI. The AI wasn't able to, but the fact people were trying put them strongly against it. I'm in a weird spot where as a Software Engineer I find these AIs really neat, but also see the potential damage for artists if people like the latter go about trying to make their own version of that person's art. That's a worst case scenario though. I think artists will still be able to thrive for quite a while in the commission scene, as long as the AI doesn't become invasive

[@joseppuig925]

I find it creepy to say the least. Do all the pictures look like they are coming from another dimension? Honestly, we are looking into the first scribbles a kid is doing on a paper with a handful of crayons. But we'll see if we laugh or cry when AI gets to self-program and self-designs its own hardware.

[@oldenoughtowatchallyoutube6761]

As a traditional artist who works with digital art, I think this is awesome. I'm having so much fun throwing my art into an ai app and seeing the results. I'm getting super funny results but my eye skills are helping see better what I want to draw.

[@stickfigure31]

Given that as a society we have gotten to the point where painting a plank of wood blue is considered "Art" it's a very low bar for AI to reach.

[@MrAkella33]

A person who can do digital art can probably learn how to paint in real life. Some of the skill still translates because the person has learned to *draw*. Passing ai art off as your own requires 0 skill, not even the bare minimum of art making. Ai art should be used as a tool, to help create and not as a replacement for creation.

[@chavaspada]

Writing the prompt, choosing the output based on composition, color theory, etc takes skill. AI is just a more powerful tool but it's no different than any other digital arts tool.

[@MrAkella33]

@@chavaspada choosing what picture looks prettier is not a skill anywhere comparable to actually being able to draw. If it were then 90% of people who use Pinterest, post on Instagram, etc are all have "skill". I personally don't think that's not comparable to what I'm talking about.

[@chavaspada]

@@MrAkella33 Except it's definitely a skill. Everything you said seething painters already said and wereproven wrong after the the invention of the camera. Photography still can be art, and not any random picture is art. Knowing composition and how the tool works (camera and its relation to lighting and its configuration like len width, exposure time etc or the model, how it was trained, hyper-parameters, fine tuning, etc).

[@MrAkella33]

@@chavaspada comparing photography where you need to know how the camera works and all of its functions, knowing how to utilize it's functions to get what you want, have the artistic vision to VISUALLY see and compose how your image is taken and if it fits your artistic vision is leaps and bounds more skillful than writing a short sentence about a picture that MIGHT look like what you want it to look like... It's pretty horrifying how in an era where corporate soullessness is at an all time high y'all are excited about the prospect of machines making the art for us now, getting rid of any remaining human emotion in art. Just grimdark if you want my honest opinion...

[@chavaspada]

@@MrAkella33 You saying all that is needed is "writing a short sentence" is as shortsighted and ignorant as saying you just need to press a button to take a photograph. What's not to love about the democratization of art and means?

[@armagedonthe1gamer]

people shouldn't be mad, its extremely competitive regardless if you are painting digitally and are only supported by it you have to be in the top 1% of artists, that isn't schmuck. its going to force everyone to diversify their skills more to make new things, which will honestly give people better chances for success. This is like having the fallacy of tarrifs to protect at home jobs, when in reality the people at home should just adapt or get into a new trade.

[@1rez378]

Everyone: We are going automate everything and all that is left are creative jobs AI: Go back to work wagie

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

i think we'll be seeing the AI take over positions in purely illustrative positions, whereas artist that make art for the sake of art will find themselves still doing exactly what they're doing. the AI can't give meaning to it's compiled artworks, nor does it truely create, it just iterates from whatever already exists.

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

@@diydylana3151 I think there's a difference between how humans use existing artworks as inspiration and how AI uses it to train itself off of, but you're not entirely wrong as a lot of artists simply give their own flare on existing concepts. that doesn't make it any less creative though, as it still is a process of creation unlike what the AI does, which simply generates a result from a dataset, all of the data provided existing already while humans even if they largely mimic something else give their unique style or touchups that they think of! (and if they don't it's usually called plagiarism.)

[@kls1836]

@@isaacthesharkwolf9038 If you can spot this difference then all the power to you but to be frank if the most common demoniator accepts it like a cheeseburger from McD than i fear for the future where artists are completely relegated to a hobby and no artist can function without 2 to 3 jobs because they still decided to pursue art in Uni.

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

@@diydylana3151 I wouldn't worry too much, people buy artisan products despite there being factory alternatives that are good in quality, people like what people make and i think much the same will apply both to traditional and digital art. If you want a special piece you commission your favorite artists, if you need a quick visual design you hit up the AI. We may see some plagiarism but ultimately the fact you can display your work with the actual thingy file rather then just the finished artwork will prove plenty enough for digital artists, and unless the AI can learn how to pain with a robot hand traditional art will be safer still.

[@VVVVVeeector22333]

blackpill:

[@tinyrobot6813]

As someone who is an artist it is important to realize that this is only possible because ai is using a lot of art as data. Which has ethical concerns cause they didn’t pay for the data. This looks like a super less refined peace from art-station. As for commissions it’s hard to say cause some commission can be really specific and ai can’t always be that specific. there are a lot of unclear parts in-that picture and it can be refined . Another thing is ai doesn’t understand the concept of 3D space and say create comics which requires same character from different camera angles and different lighting and with different expressions and pose all the time . That’s a really common thing that needs to be done in jobs. character designers need to do this , so do concept artist, and so do environment artist and they have to submit different shots of the same pic form different angles. This is done to even bricks that exist in a game btw so if you didn’t notice that too probably took a lot of work. This tech doesn’t benefit anyone but corporation tho idk it’s a weird narrative thing when they talk about the tec side of things they label it as data okay but if artist want to be paid for there work which was used with out there consent they label that data as inspiration.

[@jamesflames6987]

As an artist have you "paid for" every piece of art you ever looked at?

[@tinyrobot6813]

@@jamesflames6987 are you dumb. just because I can look at things doesn’t mean I can create it I’ll have to study it which is way different. You have looked at a dog can you draw a dog from memory. Also again most artist pay for stock photo or make there own references by posing them selves. and change things based on knowledge of anatomy. The computer doesn’t understand perspective or form or anatomy or brushwork like an artist does. It doesn’t even know what a fucking giraffe is. it’s the Chinese room paradox a poor imitation to get to result which is just garbage without human intervention. that work probably took hours to shift through and I can probably find mistakes most artist can. Because we have trained our eyes and heads to see and perceive more. The same with ai 60 FPS animation. it’s bogus that tech bros think they can solve every problem with there 743 iq brain. When there are experts in those fields that have dedicated there whole life to it

[@brylythhighlights4335]

AI art is quickly becoming the gaming equivalent of aim hacks.

[@chubbycatfish4573]

I draw both digitally and on paper. I don't know if I'd say illustrating digitally is necessarily easier, but it's definitely quicker. No waiting for watercolor to dry completely on a computer.

[@elisehalflight]

It's definitely cheaper, i'll give them that. But it's fucking hard, particularly when it comes to textures, that stuff comes easily when drawing by hand but it's a total mess to make digitally

[@elisehalflight]

@Fralorgrafon Oh shit, you're right. Which is also an interesting take on this, we still don't know how sustainable from both an ecological and economical standpoint running those neural networks on a large scale will be, maybe just like manual labor, humans will still remain the cheaper option for some sectors

[@chubbycatfish4573]

@@elisehalflight You're right about that.

[@SP-hx9co]

Here’s the thing, it’s not the AI that’s bad nor the devs, but the dude who submitted the painting, he didn’t have to use any skills whatsoever wich kind of ruins the point of an art contest cause even though he had the idea he wasn’t the one who executed it, he just let the AI do the work. The AI is interesting tho

[@V1721]

AI art is epic but what I dont like about it is people credit themselves for the art, yes its their prompts but its kind of like commissioning someone Can also give a bad name to digital art for people who dont know it like " you type things at a computer then it gives you art?? " Then at the same time, I draw oc art, I dont even know why im concerned

[@Flyingclam]

My late Grandfather was a impressionist and realist artist. Taught college courses even when he was hindered by a stroke. The art is undeniable beautiful but I don't know how he would feel about it. He would make pieces in a similar style. He stressed man's ability to create quality and hated modern and new age art movement for unintentionally mocking art. But if AI is making quality art would it be a mockery of art, man or both. All I know is that this technology is revolutionary and the first real case of AI surpassing humans. Brave New World

[@khlorghaal]

id say a mockery of man. thats why people are getting upset over it, they arent as talented as they thought.

[@examplify4248]

Eh there's more to this story to be honest. - the judges of the competition were neither specialized in digital or traditional illustration - the piece was made for the 'emerging artist in digital arts/digitally- manipulated photography' (basically the 'beginner' level of the competition) - the judges claim he didn't make clear it was an AI work - people can say/file a claim he broke rules but they have to pay $300 bond for it - the initial review was done (or at least announced by) the director of communications with the Colorado Department of Agriculture; i didn't find any art related connection if people find that relevant In short, it's a win definitely, but it wasn't a fair win.

[@Flyingclam]

@@examplify4248 if you have a source on this I would love to read it. Sounds like the rabbit hole goes deep

[@youraccounthasbeenhacked]

the ai user: : "goddamit I'm so skilled"

[@CapemanProducti0ns]

Lmao, you're walking a thin line with this commentary. In this video: +trying to convince people that there was an equally artistic work on thinking of the prompt for the AI. +Arguments to why digital artists are hypocrites if they get mad at Ai usage. +pointing the obvious: there will be contests that will add the rule not to use Ai in the near future. -no meaningful comments about where could artists still beat ai -declares himself a youtube thumbnail artist +only purpose of this video: communicate that there was an art contest won by an Ai. +only good idea given by this video: a good way for contests to battle Ai would be by asking for the files of the art software containing the layers as proof.

[@MrScorpion132]

the people bitching about the ai winning are hypocrites though they dont even think for a SECOND that the skill and knowledge about composition, flow, eyelines and everything that makes an art piece good also apply to curating AI generated art and yet complain that it takes "no skill" i may not be on the level of environmental art as someone like Noah Bradley in raw drawing skill but i can still understand the way he uses composition and lighting to make his art himself, and i can even *SEE* the strokes he himself used in his pieces when i look closely, i just cant physically replicate that level of detail yet there are two sets of skills when creating art, "sight skill" and "hand skill" and a TON of artists hit blocks because their ability to see what they want to make surpasses their ability to draw it and they play catchup for a time, until they surpass their sight and that catches up again as well. AI generated art still requires skills, but it leans far heavier on the knowledge of composition than drawing. it is a tool, but one that requires a different skillset to make use of than any other form of art making currently, but because he didnt dare to use a tablet or pen or oils or acrylic paints he is some heretic that deserves everyone tossing honestly disgusting threats and "criticsm"?

[@HoloFizz]

@@MrScorpion132 sure, making an ai prompt does require a but of skill, but no where near the skill required to draw it by hand. In drawing your also working out every single one of the principles of design. You have much more control over it than an AI does. In the end results, most of the decisions were still done for you by the Ai, all you can do is guide it and hope for the best. That alone separates it. Someone who wrote the prompt is never the artist. Its the Ai, and the competition was meant for people.

[@DuskEalain]

Honestly that's the gist of it, studio work won't be in danger, neither will independent projects, or hell even freelance/contract/commission artists of any quality because the AI is great at creating singular pieces based on things already in existence. Like I tried using an AI to see how it'd interpret a fantasy species of mine back when this all started... and it gave me a seashell. A really well made seashell but that was it. It was super funny and I laughed about it for a solid five minutes. A lot of people are panicking hardcore, so was I admittingly before I sat down and really thought about it, but at the end of the day if it gains any sort of traction in the professional artspace I think it'll be more as a starting point. Like how many artists in professional studios either start with a sketchbook or a blank document, artists will start by either making thumbnail sketches or AI compositions. And just like how digital sketching didn't kill the sketchbook, AI won't kill the thumbnail sketch. AI will more than likely kill those just seeking cheap and/or free art, which if you ask me is an absolute win. Though I think now will be a bit of a testing ground too as to who can make something people _actually care about,_ fan art and whatnot will still have its place but I think you'll find more artists putting more efforts towards original creations or things tangentially related to another IP, like how many Tabletop RPG content creators will make their own homebrew, dice, minis, etc. to sell.

[@isaacthesharkwolf9038]

Probably the best take on this yet, people act like this is the end of human creativity but it will blow over as just an illustrative tool, it's useless outside of making an image generated from a prompt.

[@Zesuto3]

Exactly, I have mixed opinions on AI for art, music, poetry, etc, but on the positive side, many artists I share spaces with who were already very capable on their own are the very same people testing Stable diffusion and Dall-E and it's precisely the use they intend to give to the technology. AI shouldn't be different to an artist than what an in-app 3D pose doll is.

[@tsiazhs9631]

I don’t know, while AI is (currently) limited by what it can learn from or recreate, I feel like experimentality and ‘human’ feel can eventually be trained with enough trial and error augmented by advancements in the technology. I hope I’m wrong and that it ends up just being a useful tool for the foreseeable future, but I can’t lie, right now this whole thing definitely has me kind of shaken.

[@danni222]

cope

[@adrianm7203]

Just wait two more papers down the line... (reference to 2 minute papers). Point is the technology will continue to improve. I was one of the early adopters of this tech, playing around with the original deep style algorithms. This was many years ago before anyone knew about AI generated art. I remember showing people and usually getting the response "well so what? You can give it a photograph and it can give you a stylized version of it, that's just a fancy image filter. That will never be a threat to real artists." And now years later we are at the point where it can generate full images from scratch with ever increasing levels of control and detail. Certainly it may never completely replace humans but in 5 years we've gone from trippy deep-dream images to this. In another 5 years just imagine how much more refined this tech will be. Companies don't care about people, only profit. If they can hire an "Artistic AI Technician" who can do the same work as an entire studio of artists for a fraction the price they'll do it. The AI isn't there yet but seeing how fast we've gotten to this point I have no doubt it will get there. In my opinion this will likely be the death of creativity. The AI is merely copying the creativity of human artists, it isn't capable of creating anything truly original. For example it will never be capable of inventing a new art style without pre-existing examples. If you think digital/concept art is unoriginal and soulless today just wait until it's all AI generated. A world of technically stunning artwork that lacks any heart or soul. This is the direction we are heading. Is this a good thing? No. Absolutely not. But unfortunately it is inevitable and no one can stop it. We've opened Pandora's box and now we must pay the price.

[@Monstrick1]

Well, it will just force artist to explore new avenues of visual expression. Ai works off libraries, so it basically compiles art from different pictures, so it can't really explore on it's own. Art is basically a strive to explore new content of some kind, because every human is cursed to get bored with everything, no matter the quality or quantity.

[@adissentingopinion848]

We literally did that already, it's called modern art. The pieces are striking, yes, even the solid color rectangle canvases. But we've literally already been the monkey at the typewriter exploring every avenue of self expression for hundreds of year, the results of which the AI can simply integrate within itself.

[@Monstrick1]

@@adissentingopinion848 Most people say everything has been done already, but every day someone comes up with new and exciting things, but people will still say the same.

[@benjaminmiller3620]

There is literally an AI algorithm called "novelty search" which tries to find good solutions that are different from its training data.

[@angela.luntian]

Though this counts as cheating in a competitive sense, because it combines several presumably experts into one by a mind that has gone through numerous instantaneous trainings a human could only do in years

[@Monstrick1]

@@adissentingopinion848 Machine learning bots are reliant of input information and brute force to compile information, which is creation in a sense. It's basically DJ of art, not a creator of it. It doesn't have academic knowledge or thoughts, soit has no possibility of progress. If it was implemented 10000 years ago, it would just generate cave paintings, and you would claim that it's the end of all art as we know it.

[@blackmartini7684]

Digital art is not "easier" but I would say you have more options and tools available to you digitally.

[@thegroi]

Its still art because there's an inner intention behind it with random variables that only a human can achieve, let's begin with that. AI generated art has no intention in it's composition, it's essentially just made with 0s and 1s that other 0s and 1s were tasked to make and arrange with no variables in between. There's no thought, there is no creativity, it's only a generic picture that simulates being "art"

[@AcidiFy574]

It's easier than Trad-art

[@blackmartini7684]

@@AcidiFy574 no, it's not

[@blackmartini7684]

@@thegroi sorry but that's just not true the AI holds to a lot of composition rules and demonstrates high creativity

[@AcidiFy574]

@@blackmartini7684 whatever helps you sleep

[@swimmingseabass314]

Cant wait until someone reprograms their algorithm to make "alternative" art lmao

[@comradeblin256]

To be honest i used an art generator AI and smh the damn thing made nsfw even though i didn't tell it to :/ What's cursed it that happened when my uncle beside me xD Edit= fixed stupid typo

[@amentco8445]

All that requires is the ai having no filter, which all of these internet ones have because current year, and the ai given access to nsfw sites because the filtered ais probably don't.

[@lawsen3719]

I used to think that AI Generated Artworks would never have the same soul and feeling behind them as human artworks, but then I realized that we created AI, therefore the AI's art is also a Human's art.

[@AR15ORIGINAL]

But it does indeed have, say, "less soul and feeling density". Humans created A.I, but the ideas behind each line of code are dilluted throughout every one of the trillions of images this A.I will then make. There is no feeling behind the composition of an individual painting the A.I reproduces. I think there is meaning to that.

[@lawsen3719]

@@AR15ORIGINAL I think what you describe is the feeling of 'imperfecrion' that most human artworks have, but that imperfection is what gives it so much life. However, the AI's paintings feel soulless because of the lack of imperfections, they're 'too' good.

[@ghoulbuster1]

@@lawsen3719 nah AI art sucks lol it's filled with artifacts.

[@facundollamosas8208]

@@lawsen3719 Personally I feel that AI has the tendency of mixing the elements of the drawing with eachother, like they blend into one object, wich gives it this onyric feel that I really like.

[@HackerFlavio]

AI is a collection of all of human thoughts and emotions therefore AI is merely an extension to the human mind

[@dongabonga6472]

Giga tier: Use Krita/any digital painting software to draw over AI generated prompts. Ai art still produces distortions, and then you won't have to keep typing in prompts.

[@khlorghaal]

this is what the professionals do, its just another tool among many

[@v1perys]

There's a plugin for Krita which integrates Stable Diffusion

[@legendp2011]

my issue is I can never even get close to what is visualized in my head. (composition, angle, lighting, colour, proportions). Ai art feels more like a google search. now if we could feed an AI a rough sketch, that might work

[@v1perys]

@@legendp2011 that's literally available on Stable Diffusion as img2img script

[@khlorghaal]

@@legendp2011 see pix2pix, its a few years old, it takes silhouettes as input

[@izzymosley1970]

with how much special treatment artist on Twitter tend to get I wonder how they would react from being completely obsoleted by technology.