some of it can. i will never support it over a real artist, though.What if an artist trains an AI using only their own work to make something?
hands still get fucked up a lot too.
the problem with AI art (beyond the obvious moral and legal questions, as well as the dumb little mistakes it makes) is that it often looks way too uniform. I know it's a very vague complaint but it really does look soulless, once you've looked at enough
it's just shameful that you thought you could get away with it.
Why is this boat so small?
Why is this boat empty?
Ask it to generate it in a different style then. I was able to generate fairly realistic oil painting of a harbor by asking for it to be textured with a palette knife.Real oil painter here. The texture in the background is far too thick and varied in the background and the foreground objects are relatively flat and uniform--the opposite of how it should be and how the eye perceives reality. Also the anatomy of the ships and their relative size is complete nonsense. If you think it looks good it's because you know nothing about art, composition, style, and/or you haven't really looked at it for very long. Same problem with all AI art.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7558f026.jpg
I was showing that AI art can do more than the awful generic AI art that's being plastered on every shitty mobile game. I was fairly clear about that.Yeah sorry I wasn't really attacking you, just the picture, which was a good example.
shit always has no soul, no sauce ,no juice where is the heatthe heat is up my bhole
shit always has no soul, no sauce ,no juice where is the heat
the heat is up my bholeopen ai, show me the inside of hellys bhole
Not arguing that the person who "creates" it is an artist.
the issue is that you only ever see the bad stuff, or the stuff that's available for you to use for free
the good shit?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I1of9yqoy0I
the good shit is terrifyingly good
This still has an uncanny valley quality. They probably went w/ shades to work around the eyes usually being a dead give away, but the motions still are off and have an alien quality to them.
If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.The "skill" required to create AI art is the skill of typing something into a search engine. And you're completely glossing over the point that AI steals everything it does from what it can source on the Internet. A human can create art from scratch using only imagination, without ever having seen another single piece of art. AI can only emulate what it can steal, and if real artists stop producing new art then AI "art" can't evolve because its pool of material to steal isn't growing or changing. Just because you might think what AI produces looks or sounds as good as a human changes none of that.
You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.
Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.
People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).
There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.
For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.
You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.
Its uses for actual artists are limited, and it's more a tool for people for people who don't make art to make okayish images with minimal effort and for corporate entities to cut costs.
AI art is good for small companies. One of the cost factors for board game and card game designers is paying an absurd amount to an artist for all the pieces. Now it can be done for free, allowing more freedom for game creation.If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.
If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.
There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.
If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.big agree, smaller companies should contract smaller artists
There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.
Good luck pirating a board game.does tabletop simulator count as piracy because it has basically everything
Good luck pirating a board game.The obvious implication being that I wouldn't buy a board game with AI art.
There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a productIt's not being cut out.
It's not being cut out.did the blacksmith steal those utensils from another blacksmith and claim he made them? if so then yes.
Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?
I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?You train an image set on X artist's work by clicking a button.
I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?
I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?
It's not being cut out.That's such a horrible false equivalency. Restaurants buy supplies from someone else who makes or grows them. If a restaurant is only able to stay in business because they're stealing then damn right I'm refusing to eat there.
Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?
If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.
You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.
Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.
People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).
There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.
For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.
AI, however, does all the creation for you. Conceptually, it's identical to commissioning an artist to create something for you: You come up with an idea of what you want, you take that idea to somebody that has the skills needed to express that idea, and you work with what they've given you to fine-tune it to your needs/desires. The only real difference is that you don't have to pay for the commission because it's not a person doing it for you.
I don't know how AI learning art works. Does it steal images or parts of images to create art?
That's such a horrible false equivalency. Restaurants buy supplies from someone else who makes or grows them. If a restaurant is only able to stay in business because they're stealing then damn right I'm refusing to eat there.
Technically, it can do both. Because generative AI doesn't necessarily recognize elements, it can figures from a piece of artwork and put them as-is into another artwork (ie, no change to the figure itself).So it's not necessarily breaking any laws?
In theory, it's creating new composition. In some cases, that involves recreating existing material and in other cases it might reuse it. However, there's so much content out there that it's tough to determine what belonged to what, outside of famous works.
So it's not necessarily breaking any laws?
Copyright infringement probably.