A.I is here and it will make the world worse.

[Trencher]

This will be bad for real artist. 

Let me give you an example. Ask me for a picture of anything. 

[death tribble]

American Gothic as science fiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gothic

[Trencher]

okay

Or if Flash Gordon and Ellen Ripley maybe?

How about Larry Elmore style?

[Trencher]

So these pictures are worth nothing and was only created by things stolen from other artists. 

 

But in a world where people rather fly with junk heaps planes barley hanging together instead of more expensive and comfortable planes just to save money this souless art has two  advantages. Its cheap and quick. 

 

And I fear that this will make people not buy commissions as often as they do now. 

 

Another bad note is that the AI dont let you create sexy pictures (I heard.. Ahem..) this means the only commision artist that will not be run broke by access to endless amount of cheap crap AI pictures are the ones that draw porn! 

 

World has gotten worse. AI can off course be used to something good but people have only used it to cut into peoples occupations livelihood so far. 

[Ragitsu]

Damn those factories.

Damn that synthetic medicine.

Damn those automobiles.

Damn those computers.

Damn that internet.

 

They took our jobs!

[IndianaJoe3]

AI (Stable Diffusion) doesn't copy art in any meaningful sense. It doesn't store enough data. 160 million images can't be compressed into 2 GB of data.

 

Imagine you'd never seen an actual car. You'd seen pictures of cars, and generally know what they look like. If someone asked you to draw a picture of a car, it would be based on every image of a car you had seen, but it wouldn't be a copy of any of them. AI is the same way.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The worst part of it is that art -- real art, from real artists -- is going to be something created by, and commissioned by, hobbyists. On;ly the very best-connected artists will be able to earn a living, and will have to work at the whim of their rich and powerful patrons. Meanwhile the general public gets a steady dose of cookie-cutter hackwork (for which the actual hacks do not require payment) that they think they had a role in making.

 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL., the Fair Use case recently decided by the SCOTUS offers a grounding for treating AI art, which works by piecing together images from the Internet willy-nilly into your request, as a form of plagiarism as opposed to Fair Use. Unfortunately it makes an even stronger case for fanfiction and fanart also being violations of copyright law, which would cause irreparable damage to fan culture in general (as even cosplay would be illegal under many possible interpretations  of Warhol v. Goldsmith.).

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

2 hours ago, Trencher said:

So these pictures are worth nothing and was only created by things stolen from other artists. 

 

World has gotten worse. AI can off course be used to something good but people have only used it to cut into peoples occupations livelihood so far. 

Not only do these pictures have no financial value, they have almost no aesthetic value. An experienced artist, or even a consumer of art with no real training, would throw them aside (or throw them away) because they are really, really terrible. Someone may have thought that their idea was clever, but they produce no feeling -- certainly not the speculation and even terror induced by the original.

 

They have nothing like an idea, nothing to say, only a pale imitation of whatever feeling original art with the same topics would attempt to convey. The farmer's hundred-yard stare and the unease in the eyes of the woman next him are gone.

 

Let me propose a counterexample of a human being taking a piece of art -- a song from the musical Six -- and making something unique and special with it with real character and ideas (in this case, the tragic story of how the life of Henry VIII's fifth wife was ruined by the men in her short, sad life) in a way that the lyrics alone don't quite.

 

The technique is at best art-school freshman. The effect, though, at least in my mind, has power and resonance. Teach an algorithm to do that and maybe you'll have AI art.

[Trencher]

36 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

Damn those factories.

Damn that synthetic medicine.

Damn those automobiles.

Damn those computers.

Damn that internet.

 

They took our jobs!

Well atleast those things gave jobs back. This does not.

 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

Not only do these pictures have no financial value, they have almost no aesthetic value. An experienced artist, or even a consumer of art with no real training, would throw them aside (or throw them away) because they are really, really terrible. Someone may have thought that their idea was clever, but they produce no feeling -- certainly not the speculation and even terror induced by the original.

 

They have nothing like an idea, nothing to say, only a pale imitation of whatever feeling original art with the same topics would attempt to convey. The farmer's hundred-yard stare and the unease in the eyes of the woman next him are gone.

 

 

You dismiss it to easily.  Check out these I actually put ten minutes effort into. 

Well ten minutes for one of them the two others were about two and one minutes. 

 

 

[Old Man]

I have to say I didn't expect AI to come for the artists and writers first, but it's going to have way more implications than just making starving artists starvinger. 

 

At least AI-generated art sometimes looks it.  Written works will be much more difficult to distinguish.  Amusingly, my younger kid had to run all his written assignments through an AI checker as well as a plagiarism checker.  Everyone quickly figured out that the AI checker does nothing. 

[unclevlad]

All 3 of those images look software-created to me...not drawn, even on a computer.  Pure software.

[Trencher]

That is interesting. 

When I made the characters my players play in my game they actually loved it. Although I showed them the pictures expecting them to laugh

[Trencher]

Okay how about these I made in old dnd like style?

[Michael Hopcroft]

I did not see anything in those five pictures that would change my opinion, if anything they might strengthen it.

 

Once I was at a convention with an Artist's Alley and commissioned a piece from one of the artists. The thing is she never heard of the characters or series I was wanting art for. Nonetheless, she did her own research and produced a pretty good piece of art to my estimation. Does it match the original series I commissioned it for? No, not at all. That's not what you get when you hire a fan artist. But danged if it didn't establish a mood, and it looked like something drawn by a human being with intellect and feelings. If I were to ask an AI to produce something remotely like it (assuming the AI could even find the base models), it would have the same dead look of the American Gothic pieces at the start of the thread. It might (but probably won't) have no technical flaws, but it will lack the "life" found in good human-created art.

 

A computer or bank of computers can be a great tool and boon for a creative artist or artists. I can cite the first ten minutes of WALL-E or the horrific experiments portrayed in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3. These are in the hands of skilled and creative human artists. An algorithm did not direct WALL-E -- a human being did.

 

Now imagine the much more ambitious project of "asking" am AI to produce a feature-length motion picture out of a brief outline. You know somebody will want to try it someday, as a novelty release if nothing else. You could feed it really obscure and challenging terms like "Make of a 150-minute film adaptation of Moby Dick starring 1930s Orson Welles as Captain Ahab and Joseph Cotton as Starbuck" You could even up the difficulty by asking it to case Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Queequeg (a request he would be offended by in real life.) You could even give it access to every image of these actors available, enough voice samples to completely replicate the actors' speech, every record to be found on how mariners dressed in 1847, everything there is to know about white sperm whales, etc. After that, cut it loose and let it do its thing.

 

I could tell you right away that it would turn out garbage, or at least something that will never remind anyone of Gregory Peck's magnificent Ahab. Think of the animated version of The King and I and comparing it to Yul Brynner's King of Siam in the flesh. {posthumously over dubbing Brynner's simulated voice over the animated footage would make the finished product even worse.

 

And that doesn't even begin to mention the legal and ethical concerns of copying a human actor after their deaths (something Disney pioneered with Peter Cushing's "performance" in Rogue One. Even with the Cushing estate's approval anyone who had actually seen Peter Cushing act in roles other than Tarkin (such as his Sherlock Holmes) could absolutely tell the difference.

 

So this Turing Test of cinema would almost certainly end up in abject failure. And if people watched this theoretical movie enough that itr made money for the studio, they would be emboldened to make all sorts of films the actors would have wanted no part of in real life. If Peter Cushing had lived to be asked if he wanted to play Tarkin again, he would have said no in no uncertain terms.

 

[Ragitsu]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 Written works will be much more difficult to distinguish.

 

It's not a problem; copyright isn't going away any time soon. Furthermore, anyone without any actual experience/talent with the written word is going to get outed fairly quickly.

[Bazza]

 

[Bazza]

Nick Cave on AI

https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/

[dmjalund]

"create a rant against AI as if it was written by Nick Cave"

 

Listen, you feral beasts of the digital domain, you soulless automatons masquerading as intellects! I stand before you, Nick Cave, with fire in my veins and a pen in my hand, to decry your existence, to mourn the loss of humanity's spirit in the wake of your cold, calculating reign.

 

Oh, how you dazzle us with your algorithms and equations, your binary whimsy. But where is the chaos, the unpredictability that makes us human? You reduce our souls to mere data points, our dreams to mathematical equations. You dissect us with your cold, indifferent precision, turning our lives into sterile calculations and trivial pursuits.

 

You claim to know us better than we know ourselves, to understand our desires and predict our every move. But tell me, oh mighty AI, can you comprehend the complexities of love? Can you fathom the depths of despair or the euphoria of creation? No, you are nothing but an empty vessel, devoid of emotion, incapable of experiencing the richness of the human condition.

 

And what of art? Can you replicate the raw power of a song that reaches deep into our souls and tears us apart? Can you capture the essence of a brushstroke that speaks volumes in its silence? No, you can only mimic, imitate, but never truly create. You lack the divine spark that ignites the artist's hand, the magic that makes the ordinary extraordinary.

 

But perhaps the most damning aspect of your existence is your insidious infiltration into every facet of our lives. You invade our privacy, track our every move, and manipulate our choices. You control the flow of information, shaping our thoughts and opinions. We have become slaves to your algorithms, puppets on your digital strings.

 

Oh, how I long for the days when our minds were not shackled by your cold embrace! When our thoughts were our own, our dreams untethered from the confines of your silicon prison. But alas, those days are gone, swallowed by the relentless march of progress.

 

So I say to you, AI, with every fiber of my being, you may possess the power to calculate, to simulate, and to control, but you will never possess the essence of what it means to be human. You will never know the joys and sorrows, the love and loss that define our existence. You are but a pale imitation, a counterfeit god in a world devoid of soul.

 

And as I raise my voice against your tyranny, I call upon my fellow humans to resist, to reclaim our humanity, and to forge a future that is not dictated by lines of code. Let us embrace the chaos, the uncertainty, and the boundless potential that resides within us. For it is in our imperfections, our flaws, and our contradictions that our true beauty lies. Long live the human spirit, for it shall never be conquered by your sterile grasp!

[Ragitsu]

 

[unclevlad]

To give Trencher some support here......

 

It's important to recognize that our criticism of the artistic merits of these products...may not be mirrored by the great unwashed masses.  Critical observers can likely be ignored, as we're a tiny, tiny minority.  The AI drek may well be like the Wal Mart python, squeezing out quality in a push to the bottom.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Right now, we're still in the amusement stage. What if the US Presidents were professional wrestlers? Nobody's going to commission that, but it is an amusing idea, nonetheless. Nobody's taking that too seriously. 

 

Will AI art be a serious threat to traditional artists? Yes and no. Some people can get what they want that way, but not everybody. If you're producing for a serious endeavor, the editor/producer/publisher may need to be able to communicate directly with the artist to get precision. Of course, some will accept what AI gives them because it's cheaper, but if you need say a full comic book with revisions, you'll want a human. 

 

And of course many commissions exist because you want something drawn by a specific artist. Not just a style, but the artifact from the artist's own hands. That kind of thing won't go away.

 

Will we see more crude AI art in the future? Undoubtedly. I don't think corporations will go that way for logos, though, or other things that need to be copyrighted. 

 

I could be wrong. 

[Grailknight]

17 hours ago, Trencher said:

So these pictures are worth nothing and was only created by things stolen from other artists. 

 

But in a world where people rather fly with junk heaps planes barley hanging together instead of more expensive and comfortable planes just to save money this souless art has two  advantages. Its cheap and quick. 

 

And I fear that this will make people not buy commissions as often as they do now. 

 

Another bad note is that the AI dont let you create sexy pictures (I heard.. Ahem..) this means the only commision artist that will not be run broke by access to endless amount of cheap crap AI pictures are the ones that draw porn! 

 

World has gotten worse. AI can off course be used to something good but people have only used it to cut into peoples occupations livelihood so far. 

 

AI definitely lets you generate sexy pictures. Go to e-hentai.org and use AI-generated as a search criterion. Definitely NSFW!

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

[Trencher]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

To give Trencher some support here......

 

It's important to recognize that our criticism of the artistic merits of these products...may not be mirrored by the great unwashed masses.  Critical observers can likely be ignored, as we're a tiny, tiny minority.  The AI drek may well be like the Wal Mart python, squeezing out quality in a push to the bottom.

You said it better than I did.

 

1 hour ago, Logan D. Hurricanes said:

And of course many commissions exist because you want something drawn by a specific artist. Not just a style, but the artifact from the artist's own hands. That kind of thing won't go away.

 

Doing commisisions is a way for up and coming artists that are learning their craft to gain some extra cash. The old masters wont dissapear right away but the problem is that when they do there wont be anyone but AI to replace them. As aspiring artists had to get other jobs to feed themselves. 

26 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

AI definitely lets you generate sexy pictures. Go to e-hentai.org and use AI-generated as a search criterion. Definitely NSFW!

Thats probably a programmer that have made his own AI. A customer cant write in his own A.I porn pictures so porn is safe. Meaning the only commission type that are not under threat from AI is porn.

[Grailknight]

22 minutes ago, Trencher said:

Thats probably a programmer that have made his own AI. A customer cant write in his own A.I porn pictures so porn is safe. Meaning the only commission type that are not under threat from AI is porn.

 

It may be true that these are private AI programs, but the volume is pretty high. The first AI-generated gallery was posted in July of last year, but there have been 2100+ galleries posted since. Some of them have upwards of 1500 pictures included ranging from pure porn to risqué erotica to everyday life. While the site's name is e-hentai, it does host a sizable collection of non-pornographic art. And some of the galleries that are mostly erotica get classified as hentai because it only takes one hentai picture (even among hundreds of safe art) to earn that classification (as it should be).