Acceptable uses for AI in art

[Memory]

AI is a really controversial topic right now, with artists protesting against their works being used to train algorithms without their consent, or AI art being used (and in at least one case winning an award) instead of hand-crafted art which threatens the livelihood of professional artists.

Then on the other side, there are people being denied copyright because they used AI generators for all or part of a work they lay claim to. I personally think that is a bit extreme because it does take effort (and a lot of patience) to craft the ideal prompt for what you want to generate, and there is a lot of editing and decision making when deciding what to include in the final piece for compiled works. AI is a tool that people work with to generate the desired outcome. You could argue that it's like using digital art programs like Photoshop. Yeah, one takes a lot more effort to create something than the other, but they're both tools so I'm worried about where people draw the line between tool and creator.

In the case of the guy who generated an entire children's book using AI for both the text and images, I think I'd probably consider him more of an editor than an author. But it would depend on whether he just went with whatever the AI gave him and threw what worked together, or if he spent a lot of time regenerating to get the result that he wanted and then touching it up after. I can sympathize with that, because I often have an image in my head that I want to get out, but still, after decades, don't have the skill to realize it.

That said, I think there are legitimate uses for AI that don't harm other artists or detract from the artist's claim that they created the final piece.

I have used AI in the last couple of years to help me when I'm stuck with writing. I give it what I have up to where I'm stuck, and then let it generate the next passage to get me over that hurdle. It usually involves clicking "regenerate" over and over until I'm happy with the general result, and then I do a lot of editing to make it fit and put it in my own words.

I also have used AI text-to-image generators to create pieces of a larger artwork that I'm struggling with. Again, it requires a lot of trial and error to get the prompt and result to look generally right, and then takes a ton of editing after to adjust the lighting and painting over the seams to make it fit into the overall image.

But maybe you think even those two examples are going too far. Let me know what you think.

Either way, I don't think there's any stopping algorithmically generated art. Even in our utopic scifi depictions like Star Trek, they have the holodeck which can generate an entire virtual setting and characters from a voice prompt. But Star Trek also explored the ethical ramifications of this in a couple episodes, like in TNG when Lt. Barclay created virtual versions of his crewmates and in DS9 when Quark is asked to create a digital likeness of Major Kira for some rich guy's sick pleasures in the holosuite.

[plantovision]

I dislike AI art. That being said, I'm willing to tolerate AI art if the prompter is 100% transparent about it and is not using it to get money or... "clout". On the topic of copyright, however, I don't think the prompter should be able to copyright the art that the AI makes because, well, the AI made it. If anyone should be able to copyright it, it's the people that made the AI. The most that a prompter could hope to copyright is their prompts as that's what they made.

Uncopyrightable AI art (partially) solves the problem of AI stepping on the toes of professional artists. People using AI art for projects may be able to use that AI art, sure, but they will lose out on copyright for whatever the AI makes. Having to regenerate the image over and over again may take time, but (and I don't say this with the intention of insult) there isn't much skill in pressing a render button until the image is satisfactory. Giving prompts to an AI is like to giving prompts to a freelancer. The prompter of the AI is more like the client, not the artist.

[Memory]

I dislike AI art. That being said, I'm willing to tolerate AI art if the prompter is 100% transparent about it and is not using it to get money or... "clout". On the topic of copyright, however, I don't think the prompter should be able to copyright the art that the AI makes because, well, the AI made it. If anyone should be able to copyright it, it's the people that made the AI. The most that a prompter could hope to copyright is their prompts as that's what they made.

Uncopyrightable AI art (partially) solves the problem of AI stepping on the toes of professional artists. People using AI art for projects may be able to use that AI art, sure, but they will lose out on copyright for whatever the AI makes. Having to regenerate the image over and over again may take time, but (and I don't say this with the intention of insult) there isn't much skill in pressing a render button until the image is satisfactory. Giving prompts to an AI is like to giving prompts to a freelancer. The prompter of the AI is more like the client, not the artist.

Your point about client vs artist is pretty good, but I wonder how you feel about photography. The image already exists in front of you, and all you need to do is push a button to capture it. Professional photographers will take dozens or hundreds of photos of the same subject in quick succession and then select the best from the set. They also need to worry about framing, lighting and composition. But are these things really much more of a contribution on the artist's part than refining a prompt iteratively and pressing "generate" over and over before selecting the best result? Even if an amateur takes a quick snap of the landscape without any thought behind it, they own the copyright so the skill behind capturing the image isn't what distinguishes them as the creator/artist.

[Memory]

Honestly, 'round these parts I probably have a different opinion about it, but I don't actually mind algorithmically generated artwork¹.

In my opinion, art in general is something that should be common property throughout society as a whole, not an individual commodity that is protected and sold by only one artist. After all, everyone, including artists, is a product of generations before them who influenced and shaped them into who they are now. Without ever having seen a portrait, would I truly have painted a portrait the same way I did now? Probably not. Every piece of art created is really the work of all the generations that came before you, including you. The colors, the tools, the canvas, they are all products of generations upon generations of working class artisans. No piece of art is truly only one person's product.

So, is it really important if an algorithm is fed with millions of images and then creates a unique result out of all these, or if an artist is influenced by the history of art over an entire lifetime and then creates a result out of them?

I can only see sad, capitalist reasons for maintaining full control over one's own art: the idea that everything we produce, everything we enjoy needs to be a commodity that makes us money and is one person's property to do with as one see fit. Sure, artists still need to be paid, but I don't think algorithmic artworks will kill manual art any time soon; and even if it does, there are plenty of professions that appear and disappear with technological progress; and it never meant to stop the progress of society.

In an ideal world, artists would create art for the sake of creating art and getting acclaim from their peers, and if someone enjoys playing around with stable diffusion algorithms to create art they view as beautiful, so be it. Life shouldn't be a competition about who put in the most effort or who suffered the most. After all, we all kind of just want to live and float through life with a happy feeling, right?

¹ As someone who works with dialogue systems and conversational "AI", I don't use the word AI for these statistical machines and machine learning, because that would imply there is any kind of intelligence or consciousness behind it rather than the stochastic and statistical algorithms they actually consist of. Same with ChatGPT et al.

[Memory]

In my opinion, art in general is something that should be common property throughout society as a whole, not an individual commodity that is protected and sold by only one artist. After all, everyone, including artists, is a product of generations before them who influenced and shaped them into who they are now. Without ever having seen a portrait, would I truly have painted a portrait the same way I did now? Probably not. Every piece of art created is really the work of all the generations that came before you, including you. The colors, the tools, the canvas, they are all products of generations upon generations of working class artisans. No piece of art is truly only one person's product.

This is something I think about every time I see someone post their charcoal artwork that looks 100% like a black and white photograph. It's amazing how good some people are. I haven't seen any classical art that compares to the realism of modern artists.

So I wonder, is it the tools that are better, or are present day artists that much more skilled? If they're just using charcoal, I don't think it can be the tools. They must have built on all of the lessons and skills passed down from artists over centuries.

I can only see sad, capitalist reasons for maintaining full control over one's own art: the idea that everything we produce, everything we enjoy needs to be a commodity that makes us money and is one person's property to do with as one see fit. Sure, artists still need to be paid, but I don't think algorithmic artworks will kill manual art any time soon; and even if it does, there are plenty of professions that appear and disappear with technological progress; and it never meant to stop the progress of society.

In an ideal world, artists would create art for the sake of creating art and getting acclaim from their peers, and if someone enjoys playing around with stable diffusion algorithms to create art they view as beautiful, so be it. Life shouldn't be a competition about who put in the most effort or who suffered the most. After all, we all kind of just want to live and float through life with a happy feeling, right?

This is where I kind of disagree with you. While art for art's sake is a great ideal, and something I'd like to see humanity reach someday, it's just not the reality we're in. You have to remember that a lot of classic artists throughout history enjoyed "patronage", where rich people basically gave them enough to live a comfortable life so that they could produce art to their liking. You could think of it as the original "selling out", but everyone needs to make money (for as long as money and scarcity are a thing in the world) and really great art requires so much devotion that it doesn't leave room for anything else to pay the bills. I don't think art as a whole would be as remarkable if we were at the mercy of hobbyists.

But you're definitely not wrong, and even copyright law acknowledges what you're talking about. If whoever created something the first time had indefinite rights over it, so no once could replicate or build on it, we'd completely stagnate. So copyright only lasts the life of the artist so they can benefit from their work, plus however many years Disney lobbies for so that they don't have to share Mickey Mouse with anyone. That's where copyright law kind of falls apart, but at least it seems to be catching up and Disney's most recent attempts to increase the timespan copyright is maintained after the author's death have failed.

[Melooon]

People ask me about this all the time when I tell them Im a digital artist - AI is a LONG way from making functional websites or games, but it is going to have a big impact on many other creative mediums much sooner.

The hard truth is that its not really up for debate; AI is not going away; its going to get better and it is going to be used by a lot of companies and people who need things created. I think AI will replace the jobs of many print artists, comic book authors, UX designers, graphic designers, video editors, audio engineers and many many more! - Its not nice to be replaceable, but it happens

However the technology itself makes me really excited! In the same way as computers and software like Unity or even your web editor has allowed you to create things that would have been impossible 30 years ago, in 30 years we will be able to make things that are impossible today! I think AI is an amazing tool and its gonna have the potential to really positively impact the world and our creative lives.

Is AI created imagery Art though? I don't think so. Good art is about the human soul, it has to say something new - the one thing an AI can never do is say something new, it does not have the ability to interpret true meaning or play on our expectations - the day an AI can do that is the day that the AI will be indistinguishable from a human - anndd we don't live in Blade Runner just yet

The question for artists and people working in other creative engineering jobs is- how soon is my job going to be replaced, and what can I do to evolve and stay ahead of that moment. Thats something we all have to do in our careers anyway, not just ones threatened by AI - the cycle of change never stops!

There will always be things that can be replaced, but there will also always be things that can never be replaced. Could an AI have ever predicted the evolution of the web revival? Could an AI ever have imagined the simple joy someone gets from looking at a site that they made themselves because they wanted a website when they were a child?

AI created media can be pretty, or weird, or uncannily accurate - but thats just on the surface and a pretty artwork is not necessarily a good artwork, good art comes from the soul - or perhaps it speaks to the soul - its created in the interpretation of the human who defines it and the human who perceives it - unlike technology, art does not get better, it just changes - everything else is just a tool, and its how you use that tool which makes it art or not.

[HayleyMulch]

As an illustrator myself, I am very staunchly against AI art. Sadly the majority of those singing the praises of AI art have actually just shown they do not want to pay or support artists.

There's a whole subreddit where AI bros are warning about the action that artists are so rightfully taken to protect themselves. Such an example being this screenshot from the AI subreddit.

Like it's laughable that these people don't know that professional working artists will always have clauses in their contracts for commercial rights of usage and so forth. I have done this myself in the past.

More examples of these AI bros that just make the whole thing disingenious to me and quite frankly laughable that I have zero respect for any of them, if they don't respect us in the first place.
This screenshot
And this

Now writing and photography isn't my lane. I'm speaking here in the realms of digital illustration. I absolutely believe there always should be consent and artists permission given first. If an artist wants to make images specifically to feed an AI program, than great! But I still fear the future it will give for working class artists. Corporations will want to use it as it's cheaper than hiring human labour, and I have genuinely seen people on bird app say "what's the point in being an artist anymore, I won't do it", which is so dystopian. It's horrible to rip away an ability that's innate within all of us.

And I disagree. I think there is zero skill whatever ever needed to just type a few words into a program to play lottery on what you're gonna get as an image.

EDIT: while I did say 'writing and photography isn't my lane', I do believe those creators should have their rights, copyrights and consent given first at all times.

[tarraxahum]

You will not frigging believe who misclicked something and erased an entire post again. Also there's been three posts posted while I was rewriting this so sorry if I step on someone's point. ANYWAY.

I find AI learning fascinating as a concept. We're technically doing what sci-fi books write about, or the beginnings of it, anyway. In that regard, I was excited when the whole AI art appeared. I played with some free instances myself at first.

However, I'm also an artist and I can't ignore, pardon the language, the shitshow that's currently going on. I'd say it's an imperfect combination of "some people have infinite potential for ruining good concepts" and "we've never done that before, so there's no definite law on the subject, which is getting abused".

I believe that AI art as a concept has great potential. But ONLY if 1) the whole stolen art thing gets addressed, legally streamlined, and turned into training AI art on free-license and/or willingly donated material ONLY, and 2) if people doing said AI art will be open about it, dignified about it, and basically make it into a wholy separate section of art (like the aforementioned photography).

Because what we have now is blatant signatures of artists being visible on art without said artist's knowledge. What we also have is people making "art" in an artist's style not even a day after said artist's death, showing great disrespect. What we have is this very recent situation where a person made a screenshot of a work in progress on an artist's livestream, ran that screenshot through an AI, posted it immediately, and when said artist posted their work (which obviously took much more time to finish) - said person demanded credit, 'cause they posted first.

How is that art? That is a blender machine of greed and attention-seeking. If stealing art is illegal, if tracing someone's art is looked down upon, and if physical forgery of a painting in an existing artist's style for money is a whole heist material, then how is any of aforementioned problems okay?

There are clearly even now people who put actual effort in their pieces, tweak them or even finish them up "by hand", yes. And that's effort, and that's maybe even an art in it's own right. But their achievements are currently being heavily clouded by the fact that even their art is originally built on material questionably obtained (I'm no stranger to piracy, but those artists whose art gets currently chewed up are hardly a corporation who won't feel that), AND the actions of those individuals with questionable morals who so far run rampant.

Most artists don't earn that much as is. If their styles can be imitated in a matter of an hour and for much cheaper, without their consent or even awareness needed? That's a serious blow. And I'm not a fan of a cynical approach of "Well, go get an 'actual job' then!".

I say, clear up the learning databases situation (somehow, considering an AI apparently does not forget. Start from scratch maybe?) and give the AI art it's separate art category, and then most of the issues will be done with. Say, if a contest is not a "All types of entries mixed together from art to photos to texts to plush toys" type of a contest, then give AI art a separate category. You don't pin artists against, again, since the example came up, photographers, 'cause their craft it different. Same here. AI vs AI, human vs human.

There's admittedly also a concern of corporate greed. Like, take book covers for example. Why pay an artist and wait days for their work when you can generate a cover with an AI? Which...yes, upsetting from an artist standpoint, but also most companies are already cutting corners wherever they can, trading art for photobashing and what not. This is just the logical next step in that decline, whether we like it or now. What IS currently the problem is, you guessed it, the glaring art theft mixed up in that process. I believe Tor Books has an ongoing incident just like that with one of their new books.

So, to summarize my opinion, AI art is most likely here to stay, and it does have it's uses (for example it'd be fun to use one to generate graffiti to put on backgrounds in my comics instead of drawing them myself when it's just for the aesthetic) but it needs to be properly defined in legal terms and recognised as a separate thing instead of competing with fully human art.

And that's just me talking as an artist who in a span of a couple of years went from "Wow, so cool!" to "Hecking hell, this is why we can't have nice things". I'm not even gonna touch on the whole alleged situations with personal medical records getting into that database blender and the facial recognition angle, I don't have enough info or expertise on neither of those.

---

As for art being "common property"... I think, as many things, that's sort of an utopia, because a lot of us, unfortunately, live under capitalism right now. I'm an artist who draws "for myself and those who like my art", mostly, but while not being able to earn my keep with said art, where am I left? Crunching on three jobs (well, three separate projects on my actual job) and sacrificing sleep to be able to put my art out, because the alternatives are either go broke or not draw at all. I've been in that place of not creating for years and I coudln't make rent as is. So "in this economy", if people want to have art in their lives at all, then artists need to be able to create and survive at the same time. Which, for many, means that their art has to bring them income.

Which, in turn, means they need to own their art. Because if they don't, if it can just be taken, changed, sold or imitated, then no amount of "That means people like it!" will put food on their table. I know that artists dying in poverty and only getting big after their death was a big thing in the past, but surely that's not the ideal here

And if artists of various kinds just stop creating and go do more paying jobs non-stop then it will affect them psychologically for sure and will also be felt sorely in the world. What was that saying going around in 2020? Something like ":grin:omg:n't forget than in your darkest times you've turned to art". TV and films are art too, aren't they?

Speaking of which. Keeping in mind how they dealt with a death of an actor in Fast and Furious a few years ago, I honestly wonder if in a few years we'll be debating the legitimacy of creating whole movies with technology instead of hiring actual actors. And how said actors will feel about that. Although in analogy with AI art's current state I'd say it would be more of a deepfake territory: why need actors at all if you could take anyone's image without their permission or knowledge and put them on big screens?

also it's 2 am for me, I should probbaly stop this train of thought, I've already written a wall of text TWICE

[Memory]

You will not frigging believe who misclicked something and erased an entire post again. Also there's been three posts posted while I was rewriting this so sorry if I step on someone's point. ANYWAY.

I know the feeling. I've been trying to reply to this for so long, but keep seeing people reply with great points that I want to address so I have to go back and quote them as well. Welcome to the list

I think I cover a lot of your points in my response to HayleyMulch when talking about consent/copyright and artist livelihoods below, so to keep this post from getting too long I'll just add this:

What we also have is people making "art" in an artist's style not even a day after said artist's death, showing great disrespect.

This is EXACTLY how I feel about "holograms" and digital recreations of dead musicians and actors. I'm really disgusted by it. It's one thing for Rogue One to have a de-aged recreation of Carrie Fisher for a brief scene at the end (she was still alive by the time it was released and presumably authorized the use of her likeness), but replicating Peter Cushing's entire performance for a major role is way too far.

James Earl Jones recently authorized the use of AI to replicate his voice for Darth Vader in future Star Wars projects, which is fine, but that's different from taking the face, voice and acting style of someone who has been dead for a long time and never could have consented to it.

As an illustrator myself, I am very staunchly against AI art. Sadly the majority of those singing the praises of AI art have actually just shown they do not want to pay or support artists.

...

Now writing and photography isn't my lane. I'm speaking here in the realms of digital illustration. I absolutely believe there always should be consent and artists permission given first. If an artist wants to make images specifically to feed an AI program, than great! But I still fear the future it will give for working class artists. Corporations will want to use it as it's cheaper than hiring human labour, and I have genuinely seen people on bird app say "what's the point in being an artist anymore, I won't do it", which is so dystopian. It's horrible to rip away an ability that's innate within all of us.

And I disagree. I think there is zero skill whatever ever needed to just type a few words into a program to play lottery on what you're gonna get as an image.

EDIT: while I did say 'writing and photography isn't my lane', I do believe those creators should have their rights, copyrights and consent given first at all times.

I think that consent is absolutely a must when training any AI, and I don't think the "opt out" method most sites are giving is the right one. People should have to opt IN for their copyrighted works to be used for any reason and people should be able to sue for copyright infringement if something they own is used for any purpose they haven't authorized (although the TOS of most sites that do this are being updated to say you implicitly grant them permission to use your art for AI training, but the most popular AI tools right now were trained by scraping Google images which definitely doesn't include any form of consent).

And I absolutely want artists to be able to make a living off of their art, or else art and culture as a whole will suffer. Like I said above, artists need to be able to make a living off of their work because the skill they possess and the amount of time it takes to create their art means they don't have time to learn another skill or do another job to pay the bills. Artists should be able to make a living as artists.

But I've seen people make the same "zero skill" argument when talking about digital vs analog media. AI is a tool, just like any other, and all new tools are created to make it easier to do the same task that our predecessors had to struggle with. Traditional artists threw their ire at digital artists because Photoshop made it too easy to do the same thing that they were doing, and I see the same thing happening against AI.

I have done a lot of illustration in my life using traditional media, digital media and now supplementing it with AI, and I find there's a lot of skill involved no matter what you're using. Coming up with an AI prompt isn't as easy as you think. If you're just throwing whatever in to see whatever comes out, it's absolutely mindless. But if you're aiming to generate a specific image, you need to know what words and phrases the AI actually responds to and also be able to anticipate the result. It's just like how you need to know how different brushes respond to pressure and how it'll react to the texture and material of the canvas if you want to be able to take the image in your head and express it externally as a painter. And it's also like how you need to know what digital brushes or filters will create the effect you want as a digital artist.

Using the brush tool in Photoshop is really just a bunch of algorithms responding to input, just like an AI. If you looked at the code behind where you touch the screen and what the outcome is on the digital canvas it'll look more like an AI prompt than a painter using an analog brush, because in the end whether you're interacting with AI or Photoshop it's all just a program. The AI is just able to do a lot more with a lot less input.

The hard truth is that its not really up for debate; AI is not going away; its going to get better and it is going to be used by a lot of companies and people who need things created. I think AI will replace the jobs of many print artists, comic book authors, UX designers, graphic designers, video editors, audio engineers and many many more! - Its not nice to be replaceable, but it happens

Yeah, I often wonder how long until a machine can do my job. I have a friend who was actually using OpenAI to generate an extension for Visual Studio Code. Without knowing anything about TypeScript, he tells the AI what he wants the extension to do, then he attempts to run the generated code and sends the errors back to the AI to have it correct them. I should follow up and see how far he got with that.

Is AI created imagery Art though? I don't think so. Good art is about the human soul, it has to say something new - the one thing an AI can never do is say something new, it does not have the ability to interpret true meaning or play on our expectations - the day an AI can do that is the day that the AI will be indistinguishable from a human - anndd we don't live in Blade Runner just yet

Art is a really nebulous concept. I don't think we can definitively say that the artist's intention, soul or creative spirit is necessary when, at the same time, critical theory intentionally disregards these things. That says that the viewer's interpretation is what gives art meaning.

But I, as a "consumer" of art, don't really agree with "death of the artist". I think that the context of the artist's life is absolutely important in interpreting the art, and I definitely value the effort and intention that went into creating it. That's why I have such a love for practical effects, costumes and puppets in movies instead of CGI. It doesn't necessarily make the final product better, but I absolutely appreciate it more (while accepting that other people might not see the same value in it, because it's subjective).

But at the same time, I'm on board with your excitement about the technology. If I find out something was generated by an AI, I find it fascinating by virtue of what a machine was able to accomplish. Whereas if I saw/heard/read the same thing created by a human I'd think it's kinda boring. Like, have you seen those funny scripts where people say "I fed an AI 1000 episodes of ______ and had it generate it's own episode"? Those are often hilarious to read because you can see all of the quirks of the source material that the AI exaggerated. But then, when you find out it's fake and it was actually created by a real person mimicking an AI, it loses its charm.

Which reminds me, that's another use I've found for AI. The way it exaggerates the most notable features of something when it tries to replicate it. Like, if you see an AI generated image of an actor, it'll exaggerate the shape of their nose or their eyes or whatever else is most distinguishing about their appearance. I find that really useful when making my own portraits or whatever. I'll actually copy the AI as a sort of tutor telling me "this is how you make that weird generic blob person look more like Adrian Brody" or something.

It's similar to how I used to want to be a voice actor, so I do a lot of voices. But there are some voices I was never able to mimic, like Christopher Walken or Morgan Freeman, until I heard another impersonator do their impression of them, because they exaggerated what makes their voices distinct, and then I was able to replicate it myself.

[Melooon]

As an illustrator mysel...

Just a moderation note; would you mind paraphrasing quotes like this instead of screenshoting ^^ Partly because if your screenshots go down it'll break your posts meaning (and the meaning of anyone referencing you) - but also because its not really in the spirit of the forum to block quote; your post should be about what you wanna say, not what someone else says!

[Memory]

As just a little funny aside, to anyone who thinks AI can't be artists, just look at their inability to render hands! All fledgling artists struggle with hands.

[HayleyMulch]

But I've seen people make the same "zero skill" argument when talking about digital vs analog media. AI is a tool, just like any other, and all new tools are created to make it easier to do the same task that our predecessors had to struggle with. Traditional artists threw their ire at digital artists because Photoshop made it too easy to do the same thing that they were doing, and I see the same thing happening against AI.

I have done a lot of illustration in my life using traditional media, digital media and now supplementing it with AI, and I find there's a lot of skill involved no matter what you're using. Coming up with an AI prompt isn't as easy as you think. If you're just throwing whatever in to see whatever comes out, it's absolutely mindless. But if you're aiming to generate a specific image, you need to know what words and phrases the AI actually responds to and also be able to anticipate the result. It's just like how you need to know how different brushes respond to pressure and how it'll react to the texture and material of the canvas if you want to be able to take the image in your head and express it externally. And it's also like how you need to know what digital brushes or filters will create the effect you want.

But there in lies the problem. By using prompts, and knowing to use which specific prompts, all you're asking the tool to do is to try and create an image in the style of someone or something else with nothing of your own creative input in the first place. All the prompts are doing are just pulling from a source that, more than very likely, someone or something did not consent to. It's a complete joke and laughable to think there's "skill" involved in doing that. It's completely disingenuous, especially with the majority of AI tools are using artwork without permission.

Comparing using select prompts to, I don't know, 20+ years of a human brain studying different artists and then coming out with your own unique take that no one else will ever be quite able to replicate because humans will always have their own flair. There is nothing to compare there.

[HayleyMulch]

Just a moderation note; would you mind paraphrasing quotes like this instead of screenshoting ^^ Partly because if your screenshots go down it'll break your posts meaning (and the meaning of anyone referencing you) - but also because its not really in the spirit of the forum to block quote; your post should be about what you wanna say, not what someone else says!

Made some changes, I hope that helps

[Melooon]

Which reminds me, that's another use I've found for AI. The way it exaggerates the most notable features of something when it tries to replicate it. Like, if you see an AI generated image of an actor, it'll exaggerate the shape of their nose or their eyes or whatever else is most distinguishing about their appearance. I find that really useful when making my own portraits or whatever. I'll actually copy the AI as a sort of tutor telling me "this is how you make that weird generic blob person look more like Adrian Brody" or something.

It's similar to how I used to want to be a voice actor, so I do a lot of voices. But there are some voices I was never able to mimic, like Christopher Walken or Morgan Freeman, until I heard another impersonator do their impression of them, because they exaggerated what makes their voices distinct, and then I was able to replicate it myself.

These are both really cool examples! I don't have anything smart to say, but its a great way to enhance your work, and I like the idea that the AI is also like a friend or a helper to you rather than the primary source of your work - thats a really healthy technological balance.

I suppose AI can be kind of like a game, you can play at being an artist - if play is the end of the story (which is is for many people) thats not very interesting, but if you can use that play to grow your own abilities and ideas, then thats exactly what play is best at!
-

As for the issue of stolen art - I agree thats not good - if your a company you should hire artists to create art specifically to teach the AI - and if your an open source project you should ask for art to be donated. There is also so much art thats out of copyright, its really not acceptable to steal work from living artists.

Comparing using select prompts to, I don't know, 20+ years of a human brain studying different artists and then coming out with your own unique take that no one else will ever be quite able to replicate because humans will always have their own flair. There is nothing to compare there.

Would you not say thats the same as using a digital drawing tablet? You can study traditional painting for years and develop a personal technique with your own brushes and even mix your own unique paint. However when you use a digital drawing tool you are getting perfect brush strokes created by pre-made brushes using simulated paint. I don't think anyone here would argue that digital painting is not a valid form of art through; its not the same, but they are both valid and allow you to focus on different things with different results.

As just a little funny aside, to anyone who thinks AI can't be artists, just look at their inability to render hands! All fledgling artists struggle with hands.

Ugh, I rember once in art class the teacher asked us to draw our hand - everyone started tracing their hand flat on the table like you do when your five; but I started drawing mine in a complex 3D pose thinking I was Leonardo Davnici... that was the day I knew I was doomed to be an artist

[Memory]

But there in lies the problem. By using prompts, and knowing to use which specific prompts, all you're asking the tool to do is to try and create an image in the style of someone or something else with nothing of your own creative input in the first place. All the prompts are doing are just pulling from a source that, more than very likely, someone or something did not consent to. It's a complete joke and laughable to think there's "skill" involved in doing that. It's completely disingenuous, especially with the majority of AI tools are using artwork without permission.

Comparing using select prompts to, I don't know, 20+ years of a human brain studying different artists and then coming out with your own unique take that no one else will ever be quite able to replicate because humans will always have their own flair. There is nothing to compare there.

I might be thinking of AI being used in a different way than you. If you're telling the AI "make a comic strip in the style of Garfield about Garfield doing a Garfield," yeah, you're just copying someone's style intentionally. But is that really better than you drawing a comic strip in the style of Garfield about Garfield doing a Garfield with pen and paper? I don't see the AI as being the issue here. It's the person making the image who is committing the copyright/trademark infringement.

When I've used AI to generate an image, I'm typically using it to generate pieces of a larger artwork. Something like metal ductwork running at a specific angle, or the texture of skin under certain lighting conditions. Anything that I suck at painting myself despite how long I've been doing it. In this sense, I think it's more like using stock photography in a composite image, but I'm able to generate exactly what I need (with a lot of tweaking) instead of hunting endlessly for something. I guess that threatens the livelihood of stock photographers, though...

But like you said, consent and copyright are absolutely still issues in play. If that metal duct I generated to put in the corner of the background of an image was generated using photos that the original photographer didn't consent to being farmed for algorithm training, that's a huge issue that the creators of these AIs are only now starting to address.