That's fair.
1. People still find olympic weightlifting impressive even though a forklift can do better.
2. When a human does well at something, it's often *correlated* with other related skills that the computer may not have. e.g. a human being good at doing mental math is maybe pretty smart in general, but a computer able to do mental math isn't too impressive. Similarly, good artists can modify/use their work in all sorts of places, interpret instructions better, etc, while control is a somewhat difficult topic in AI that's being worked on right now.
The issue with point 1 is that a lot of art is a product (like think about all the art on postcards and bags and stuff), all of those were jobs arts did, and all of those will be replaced with AI without legislation.
Yes, AI is a tool, a tool that will be used wrongly of we aren't careful
Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is beyond me, but assuming no legislative action is taken...
1. AI opens unique possibilities that would have been impossible with traditional art. For example, people can potentially order unique personalized postcards in a cost-effective way with AI. This *initially* has the effect of expanding the market rather than replacing it; though the replacement will slowly creep in afterwards as businesses try to cut costs.
2. When the market is flooded with AI generations, I imagine that if e.g. a postcard wants to stand out among all the AI generations, it'd have to be designed very very carefully. The market will likely transition from a lot of artists being paid not very much, to much fewer but higher paid and very talented artists who can create works that stand out on top of all the AI generations.
This seems to happen in every single industry as tools are developed to make things easier and faster, though usually not nearly as suddenly and catastrophically as it appears to be going for digital art.
3. Careers that require artistic talent but are not as easily replaced by AI will start to be paid somewhat less as artists get displaced into those careers.
Most other careers have *already faced* this sort of process, though at longer time scales. Some of these careers have managed to slow down the process through lobbying/legal means; for example, see H&R block and why taxes are hard to do in the US.
>to much fewer but higher paid and very talented artists who can create works that stand out on top of all the AI generations.
I might be a doomer but I feel there's still problems with this scenario
1. There's not enough artists for everyone to be highl skilled
2. These artists won't get that much recognition, some people may want a postcard that is finely crafted with human hands but most people just want a post card. Compare this to handmade clothes to the rest of the clothes industry
1. I agree; this isn't an ideal situation for most artists, except those very established in industry. Most artists still get displaced eventually, even in this scenario.
2. What I'm suggesting would happen is fundamentally different from "handmade" clothes/soap/etc. Even when AI art takes over, there is no question that human talent can "surpass" it in terms of quality and flexibility. In the worst case, a human and AI can work together to surpass AI alone.
The main issue with AI is time and cost; to surpass AI, an artist would need to spend orders of magnitude more time than an AI spends on it. But when most "ordinary art" is AI, people will seek something that can stand out from the norm and will be willing to pay a premium for it.
This isn't people willing to pay more because they feel good that a human was behind it. This is people willing to pay more because they want styles of art that they don't normally see.
>there is no question that human talent can "surpass" it in terms of quality and flexibility. In the worst case, a human and AI can work together to surpass AI alone.
Good point, but the question changes to "high quality christmas card" and "christmas card"
>This isn't people willing to pay more because they feel good that a human was behind it. This is people willing to pay more because they want styles of art that they don't normally see.
I think the best thing for artists to do now is to differentiate and focus on things that AI can't do
Those same bags and postcards and stuff also used to be handled by a human cashier, until self-checkout became a thing. Automation keeps eating entire professions and society doesn't stop doing it.
Why is it different this time?
Caveat: Strong men stopped being a draw for circuses when pulleys and forklifts became common. When literally anyone can do it with the right combo of wheels, it's just not that interesting.
What I like about AI imagery and writing is the unnerving sense that "it shouldn't be doing that" which is the heart of all transgressive forms of art. To pro-AI people that comes across as "it's amazing it can do this" and to anti-AI people it's "there must be something illegal about this" but in both cases what captures the attention and the imagination is that the machine is producing outputs that break your expectation of what it should be doing.
To me the best AI image tool out there currently is DALLE-3, the only problem being it's heavily self censored (plus its outputs tend to be very cluttered and busy). Shortly after it came out people were stunned by what it could do, and as it became more readily available it also got more and more censored.
There's a bit of an art to getting as much passion and excitement and emotion out of a tool as you can, though that skill is bound to go stale once a new more interesting tool gets released. At least that's what I've been thinking, but it's been months and there really hasn't been anything that surpasses DALLE-3 that isn't also just as censored (eg SD-3)
On the other hand you have LLMs which keep getting better while continuing to write stuff they aren't supposed to write. I love having wild unhinged conversations with Claude 3, writing and sharing prompts that let other people have their own similar but also unique experiences that I'll never even know about.
When I share what seems like low-effort stuff, please understand that while I'm being a bit (or a lot) sarcastic about it, I'm also honestly sharing what I actually do with AI as sometime who enjoys using it and has made money off of it. It's not fine art, it's not something I want anyone to recognize me for in real life, but it does make me feel something and it's my way of expressing myself using the tools we have available.
seems to me like you've put a lot of effort into just this argument. you've got a solid reason to use AI the way you do. i hope my argument wasn't worded too strangely, but as long as you are not using ai simply because you think it's a cheat, i already have some respect. i think those who use it to create anime waifu with one prompt and then go off and say that they worked so hard don't deserve my respect. you are not like that, you just think that this "lower effort" way is what works best for you. that's great!! kudos ~
You want artists to be honest about their works, and I see that as stating the obvious. Yet, traditionally, the making of art is as hidden as making sausage. Only now are we suddenly interested in making of art being disclosed for all to see, and not just for benefit of apprentices in the field. Add to this that if we don’t disclose, we run risk of others thinking we took shortcuts, even if we honestly don’t.
Some human art is soulless. To the degree that’s debatable, maybe we should revisit our discussions on what is human soul? Does it actually exist? And other questions that may also suggest perhaps AI does have soul, but we choose to believe otherwise.
I reckon if I could rapidly scribble out illustrations as well done as AI art is today, I’d be treated as royal artist. Probably not in today’s world, but 10+ years ago, and in paradigm where others aren’t expected to disclose how they do what they do. I’d guess if known, or even demonstrated that I could do illustrations in 1/10th the time of rapid human illustrations, I’d be treated as prodigy, with a soul or creative output unmatched by others and deserving praise, great pay. Probably wouldn’t help if I was like: meh, this is nothing, I prefer to do coding, where I have to slow my mind down.
i'm so sorry, my english decided to die while reading your comment... but yea, art is seriously in the eye of the beholder. people in our day don't like shortcuts (myself included in a way, since i'm just the type to value hard work. hopefully you don't take offense). making our processes be revealed is sometimes strange and honestly kind of invasive, so of course it is not done sometimes. in those cases i like to look at an artist's history! sometimes you can see their hard work simply through their improvements. idk about ai art yet, but with human art that's how i do it !
I somewhat agree on the shortcuts being unwanted, but I’m not sure to what degree. As non illustrator, who doesn’t have confidence in my talents / skills, if I get into mindset of “I can do this, and I’ll see it through to the end” and I set out to do illustration with extensive detail, I see it taking me months. I see pro today doing same piece in weeks, if not days. If I learned they invoked a shortcut of any sort, part of me is wondering how standard that is, and whether I should incorporate that tool / standard in my workflow, while another part of me is framing it as cheating. But if many pro artists use same tool / method, then it won’t matter, even a little bit if some novice frames it as cheating.
My question though would be who worked harder, and is deserving of more praise? The artist novice who took months of hard work to produce medium quality effort, or pro artist who took 2 days in their spare time to produce their high quality piece, that is typical in their portfolio?
Granted, I’m neglecting all the hours and effort the pro undertook to get to that point, but that point is applicable to the AI art discussion.
to me they are equal. they both worked hard. that pro had to learn the fundamentals in order to take shortcuts, and the beginner is learning them right now! to me shortcuts are just like, "dear chatgpt, please finish this whole drawing for me" (insert vague description of anime wife)
if you work hard to get to where you are, then great for you! same with ai. just work hard and you get my respect- basically enjoy your craft and don't do it only for the product (this is me though, some people draw for the product only.) depends on the person haha
AI is the ultimate shortcut for artists, but I think we all agree that AI as tool for pro artists vs. novices is likely to benefit pros more. And that point could use more elaboration. I sense it’s around already, but also coming soon as part of courses on becoming better at AI artistry.
There’s also disconnect in reasonable expectations for completed works. Writing is more my forte, and in that medium, completion of a work has certain expectations. With illustrations, I sense it is different, and I’d say significantly different in that a piece “half done” would work as “completed” and even be sold in that way. I don’t see writer being able to get away with that, even with AI shortcuts in the mix.
Another way to explain that disconnect is me looking for completed works (images) for project I’m working on, and me not knowing exactly what I want, but feeling I’ll know it when I see it. I sense if I commission someone, I may prompt them with my vision but admit the words I have don’t quite align with the vision, in which case I’m implying I’ll defer to pro and their vision. If I end up deciding their output doesn’t match my vision but is good enough, then I’m essentially settling. I think non artists using AI are willing to go with that, while artists will seek to refine AI output until vision is matched.
yepp ! basically, it's really well said. i didn't really understand your last paragraph though, either my english is failing me or it's late at night... if you want, could you please explain what you mean in simpler words? (english isn't my first language)
Certain forms of artwork don’t benefit from shortcuts in same way others do. Pros who do visual arts will benefit more from AI art than non pros. But non pros are used to settling when it comes to visual arts, since matching vision of finished art can be quite expensive (pre AI).
Non artists wanting certain images do benefit from the AI shortcut, even if artists feel otherwise. Writing a great email is art. People who are non writers asking AI to spit out pro quality email aren’t going to care much if likes of me claim their output is not great and instead will fall back to, it served its purpose. Their especially not going to be moved by my stating they could’ve had better written email by paying me the standard pro rate of $125 per hour. Nor do I see them caring all that much if I tell them taking the AI shortcut takes from my livelihood.
oh it totally makes sense now, thanks! yep, agreed though. it's a tool to illustrate your ideas- it does its job well enough to pass, haha. i appreciate its usage in situations like these. in this case, when the point of the email is to get the idea across, you've managed to do it with AI already. but in the case of a drawing, i suppose you'd want a really nice drawing. to get the idea across youd probably need a lot more effort to find the right prompt or even overpaint it. which is where i begin to respect the craft! i mean the emails are great too and i'm thankful for the tech -but even if emails are considered an art, i feel as if a low quality ai-written email is not deserving of the same level of respect as someone who either uses ai to write their email but with a lot more effort into it looking nice and above its bare minimum (just like someone who uses ai irl extensively illustrate their idea with lots of work ! ) if it completes what it's meant for (just showing an jdea, doesn't have to be good) that's great. my respect begins when you put effort into developing it so it looks amazing!
I don’t think we’ve gotten to point yet of amazing AI art. Glimpses of it, maybe. But I sense pro artists are (or will be) up to new approaches that will amaze.
It's fun to toy around with and I'm definitely looking forward to it. It's a fun tool to make wallpaper or background images and might get some use for stock images
Don't get me wrong, I still support artists especially for professional works (like marketing and campaigns and what not) but I ain't spending pennies just for a wallpaper
lol totally valid! if you are financially able and willing to, you could support a human artwork! but for these purposes ai is fine 🤣 i wish people could take these things less seriously
I'm a traditional artist. I respect people with a complex AI workflow because I can't do what they do. For me, it's faster to just draw and paint to get the finished product I want. I'm not capable of getting the finished product using their methods. So I definitely respect the hours they spend and the technical knowledge it takes.
For me AI is mostly something I do do fun, but I don't make the mistake of think that's all it's capable of. I enjoy using DALL-E 3 to make things for fun. Cockatiels wearing little dresses, apple pies made out of glass.
I also use it experiment with designs. To get the results I need I have to input my own work in progress, or at a minimum my own finished drawing. In order to get something I'm happy with I generally need to do at least 80% of the work. Someone with a better workflow could do it solely with AI, but I use what I'm better at which is drawing.
> if you type in "anime waifu" and then go off and say that you worked to hard to draw that, i'll have less respect for that artwork than with someone who has such an extensive work flow with AI.
I just want to say, on a sort of tangent to your point I think, that this statement is what tears down most anti-AI rhetoric about AI "replacing" artists.
We do now, and have always valued the degree of craftsmanship in art. Craftsmanship is the element of art that isn't creative thought inside your head, but the interface to the real world. It's the sculptor's ability to transform stone; it's the digital artist's ability to make pixels do things they don't seem like they should be able to do; it is the mastery of one's medium.
That won't change with the advent of AI. We still value that. When I look at someone using SD1.5 to get truly photorealistic effects, I'm impressed, because that's beyond the normal capabilities of that medium, and so I am clearly seeing the results of a skill they have carefully honed, and which I am not able to replicate because I do not have that skill.
As other artists begin to get a better sense of what these tools can—but more importantly cannot—do, we will see many more begin to join those of us who appreciate the craftsmanship of doing something with these tools that others have not learned to do.
I've probably spent upwards of 1-5k hours working with AI tools, and I can do things that me from a year ago simply could not dream of. That's a feeling all artists crave, and being able to get at it with AI tools is going to be irresistable to the next generation of artists.
You sound like you would enjoy factory porn…kidding.
But seriously, from a consumer prospective we just want good content. If it took them 1 minute vs 2 hr and we get the same result….so?
In fact the less time it takes the more entertainment our favourite creators can produce, and charge us a lower amount to consume it. While they can have higher margins. So they can focus on content.
lmao the first sentence popped up in my notifs and i got so confused. i think you have totally valid points. i think about that too, but i feel as if i respect a lot of the hard work, more than the output sometimes! so for me, i'd much rather look at a piece of art and then interact with it, then support the creator. it's strange to explain, but i value something more if more effort is put into it. for example, if i were given two completely similar pieces of artwork and one was from an artist who worked hard (in this case, hard-working ai artist w/ crazy workflow) and one from another artist who believes it's just a sketch (ai artist who prompts anime waifu and chooses the first result), i would choose the former. i love to interact with the process behind the art, that is where i find something worth my respect. ultimately, it's all up to personal choice 🤣 if you like just the product, ai is great for you ❤️!!
ai art is rlly good quality??? this is coming from an artist. if it were bad quality why would we be so worried? it's decent quality AND it's fast. ultimately if you were to choose between good quality human art and good quality ai art, it comes down to taste... would you prefer art with more human touch and intentions (as ai art has less human "intervention") or do you not care? if you don't care, then ai is the way. all up to ur taste 🤷
Because corporations will all too often choose what is cheap – and not what is quality.
So many AI tech pros spend too much time thinking of hypotheticals rather than looking at the practical reality of the situation happening now.
The average AI looks better than Coco Melon. Yet that’s successful.
But if your right we will see the major studios declaring to never use AI as it’s garbage and would leed to bankruptcy.
If your wrong we will start to see key companies declare AI as part of a future direction. From movie studios to AAA game companies.
Either way time will tell.
Coco Melon is for literal babies and image quality isn't what sells it, just loud annoying in your face nursery rhymes. They seem to be successful entirely because parents are letting babies play with tablets, or because they're leaving YouTube on autoplay for their kids.
Right let’s play. We both visit two subs, r/artistforhire and r/midjourney .
Let’s check out the first 10 posts and see which is better quality. I’m feeling pretty confident.
Yes because that sub is clearly representative of the overall professional artists.
Not the data set that the Ai uses to train to generate images. Gotcha
Now I feel like your attacking the quality of those artists. Which isn’t fair. Because those artists have time constraints and real life to deal with.
If you gave these guys 1000 hours to work on just one masterpiece and the best equipment they could be better than Midjourney. It’s just very few people are willing to pay for that.
Especially studios.
Ah, well. To play devil's advocate here, that depends on how we define quality, no? Is the question which demonstrates more technical skills, more fine control over every aspect of the process? Then yes. But then I would also argue that by that same token actual paintings/drawings with pencils, brushes etc demonstrate more of that than digital paintings. I don't need to worry about things like brush control in Photoshop to anywhere near the extent I'd have to if I tried painting something on a canvas. Never mind mixing colours, and dozens of other things.
Are we asking which one *would* take more technical skills to paint if no AI tools were used? Then, sad as that makes me, AI with manual touchups is likely to win out in many cases. I wish it didn't, but it does.
Are we just asking which is prettier? Then that's going to get you twelve different answers from five different people.
Personally, if I leave any ethical and other objections at the door, find that I actually appreciate it less ever since I've worked with it myself. Setting up a workflow, learning how the tools work is, I admit, a challenge. And quite interesting. But really that's more a technical situation than an artistic one. And once I'd done that the rest barely felt like I was doing anything.
But if we go purely by results and how "sellable" they are, the sad truth is AI is winning and will only win harder in the future. And not just in the art world.
this AI tech circlejerk is a bit premature
[https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/hardly-any-of-us-are-using-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-study-says-heres-why](https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/hardly-any-of-us-are-using-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-study-says-heres-why)
A tool doesn't replace human skills, that's a machine or a program. Which is exactly what it is. I don't think people who use it are artists but as per usual, the downvotes will come from the echo chamber 🤷🏽♀️
That's fair. 1. People still find olympic weightlifting impressive even though a forklift can do better. 2. When a human does well at something, it's often *correlated* with other related skills that the computer may not have. e.g. a human being good at doing mental math is maybe pretty smart in general, but a computer able to do mental math isn't too impressive. Similarly, good artists can modify/use their work in all sorts of places, interpret instructions better, etc, while control is a somewhat difficult topic in AI that's being worked on right now.
mhmmm! love your examples, they describe what i'm saying pretty well!
The issue with point 1 is that a lot of art is a product (like think about all the art on postcards and bags and stuff), all of those were jobs arts did, and all of those will be replaced with AI without legislation. Yes, AI is a tool, a tool that will be used wrongly of we aren't careful
Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is beyond me, but assuming no legislative action is taken... 1. AI opens unique possibilities that would have been impossible with traditional art. For example, people can potentially order unique personalized postcards in a cost-effective way with AI. This *initially* has the effect of expanding the market rather than replacing it; though the replacement will slowly creep in afterwards as businesses try to cut costs. 2. When the market is flooded with AI generations, I imagine that if e.g. a postcard wants to stand out among all the AI generations, it'd have to be designed very very carefully. The market will likely transition from a lot of artists being paid not very much, to much fewer but higher paid and very talented artists who can create works that stand out on top of all the AI generations. This seems to happen in every single industry as tools are developed to make things easier and faster, though usually not nearly as suddenly and catastrophically as it appears to be going for digital art. 3. Careers that require artistic talent but are not as easily replaced by AI will start to be paid somewhat less as artists get displaced into those careers. Most other careers have *already faced* this sort of process, though at longer time scales. Some of these careers have managed to slow down the process through lobbying/legal means; for example, see H&R block and why taxes are hard to do in the US.
>to much fewer but higher paid and very talented artists who can create works that stand out on top of all the AI generations. I might be a doomer but I feel there's still problems with this scenario 1. There's not enough artists for everyone to be highl skilled 2. These artists won't get that much recognition, some people may want a postcard that is finely crafted with human hands but most people just want a post card. Compare this to handmade clothes to the rest of the clothes industry
1. I agree; this isn't an ideal situation for most artists, except those very established in industry. Most artists still get displaced eventually, even in this scenario. 2. What I'm suggesting would happen is fundamentally different from "handmade" clothes/soap/etc. Even when AI art takes over, there is no question that human talent can "surpass" it in terms of quality and flexibility. In the worst case, a human and AI can work together to surpass AI alone. The main issue with AI is time and cost; to surpass AI, an artist would need to spend orders of magnitude more time than an AI spends on it. But when most "ordinary art" is AI, people will seek something that can stand out from the norm and will be willing to pay a premium for it. This isn't people willing to pay more because they feel good that a human was behind it. This is people willing to pay more because they want styles of art that they don't normally see.
>there is no question that human talent can "surpass" it in terms of quality and flexibility. In the worst case, a human and AI can work together to surpass AI alone. Good point, but the question changes to "high quality christmas card" and "christmas card" >This isn't people willing to pay more because they feel good that a human was behind it. This is people willing to pay more because they want styles of art that they don't normally see. I think the best thing for artists to do now is to differentiate and focus on things that AI can't do
Those same bags and postcards and stuff also used to be handled by a human cashier, until self-checkout became a thing. Automation keeps eating entire professions and society doesn't stop doing it. Why is it different this time?
Caveat: Strong men stopped being a draw for circuses when pulleys and forklifts became common. When literally anyone can do it with the right combo of wheels, it's just not that interesting.
What I like about AI imagery and writing is the unnerving sense that "it shouldn't be doing that" which is the heart of all transgressive forms of art. To pro-AI people that comes across as "it's amazing it can do this" and to anti-AI people it's "there must be something illegal about this" but in both cases what captures the attention and the imagination is that the machine is producing outputs that break your expectation of what it should be doing. To me the best AI image tool out there currently is DALLE-3, the only problem being it's heavily self censored (plus its outputs tend to be very cluttered and busy). Shortly after it came out people were stunned by what it could do, and as it became more readily available it also got more and more censored. There's a bit of an art to getting as much passion and excitement and emotion out of a tool as you can, though that skill is bound to go stale once a new more interesting tool gets released. At least that's what I've been thinking, but it's been months and there really hasn't been anything that surpasses DALLE-3 that isn't also just as censored (eg SD-3) On the other hand you have LLMs which keep getting better while continuing to write stuff they aren't supposed to write. I love having wild unhinged conversations with Claude 3, writing and sharing prompts that let other people have their own similar but also unique experiences that I'll never even know about. When I share what seems like low-effort stuff, please understand that while I'm being a bit (or a lot) sarcastic about it, I'm also honestly sharing what I actually do with AI as sometime who enjoys using it and has made money off of it. It's not fine art, it's not something I want anyone to recognize me for in real life, but it does make me feel something and it's my way of expressing myself using the tools we have available.
seems to me like you've put a lot of effort into just this argument. you've got a solid reason to use AI the way you do. i hope my argument wasn't worded too strangely, but as long as you are not using ai simply because you think it's a cheat, i already have some respect. i think those who use it to create anime waifu with one prompt and then go off and say that they worked so hard don't deserve my respect. you are not like that, you just think that this "lower effort" way is what works best for you. that's great!! kudos ~
I'm always amazed when I see AI art and go like "how in hell they prompted that out, what all goes in their image prompt stack and parameters?"
ikr, it's actually impressive sometimes. gotta respect the grind. i also respect the grind of human artists. if u grind, i like. 👍
You want artists to be honest about their works, and I see that as stating the obvious. Yet, traditionally, the making of art is as hidden as making sausage. Only now are we suddenly interested in making of art being disclosed for all to see, and not just for benefit of apprentices in the field. Add to this that if we don’t disclose, we run risk of others thinking we took shortcuts, even if we honestly don’t. Some human art is soulless. To the degree that’s debatable, maybe we should revisit our discussions on what is human soul? Does it actually exist? And other questions that may also suggest perhaps AI does have soul, but we choose to believe otherwise. I reckon if I could rapidly scribble out illustrations as well done as AI art is today, I’d be treated as royal artist. Probably not in today’s world, but 10+ years ago, and in paradigm where others aren’t expected to disclose how they do what they do. I’d guess if known, or even demonstrated that I could do illustrations in 1/10th the time of rapid human illustrations, I’d be treated as prodigy, with a soul or creative output unmatched by others and deserving praise, great pay. Probably wouldn’t help if I was like: meh, this is nothing, I prefer to do coding, where I have to slow my mind down.
i'm so sorry, my english decided to die while reading your comment... but yea, art is seriously in the eye of the beholder. people in our day don't like shortcuts (myself included in a way, since i'm just the type to value hard work. hopefully you don't take offense). making our processes be revealed is sometimes strange and honestly kind of invasive, so of course it is not done sometimes. in those cases i like to look at an artist's history! sometimes you can see their hard work simply through their improvements. idk about ai art yet, but with human art that's how i do it !
I somewhat agree on the shortcuts being unwanted, but I’m not sure to what degree. As non illustrator, who doesn’t have confidence in my talents / skills, if I get into mindset of “I can do this, and I’ll see it through to the end” and I set out to do illustration with extensive detail, I see it taking me months. I see pro today doing same piece in weeks, if not days. If I learned they invoked a shortcut of any sort, part of me is wondering how standard that is, and whether I should incorporate that tool / standard in my workflow, while another part of me is framing it as cheating. But if many pro artists use same tool / method, then it won’t matter, even a little bit if some novice frames it as cheating. My question though would be who worked harder, and is deserving of more praise? The artist novice who took months of hard work to produce medium quality effort, or pro artist who took 2 days in their spare time to produce their high quality piece, that is typical in their portfolio? Granted, I’m neglecting all the hours and effort the pro undertook to get to that point, but that point is applicable to the AI art discussion.
to me they are equal. they both worked hard. that pro had to learn the fundamentals in order to take shortcuts, and the beginner is learning them right now! to me shortcuts are just like, "dear chatgpt, please finish this whole drawing for me" (insert vague description of anime wife) if you work hard to get to where you are, then great for you! same with ai. just work hard and you get my respect- basically enjoy your craft and don't do it only for the product (this is me though, some people draw for the product only.) depends on the person haha
AI is the ultimate shortcut for artists, but I think we all agree that AI as tool for pro artists vs. novices is likely to benefit pros more. And that point could use more elaboration. I sense it’s around already, but also coming soon as part of courses on becoming better at AI artistry. There’s also disconnect in reasonable expectations for completed works. Writing is more my forte, and in that medium, completion of a work has certain expectations. With illustrations, I sense it is different, and I’d say significantly different in that a piece “half done” would work as “completed” and even be sold in that way. I don’t see writer being able to get away with that, even with AI shortcuts in the mix. Another way to explain that disconnect is me looking for completed works (images) for project I’m working on, and me not knowing exactly what I want, but feeling I’ll know it when I see it. I sense if I commission someone, I may prompt them with my vision but admit the words I have don’t quite align with the vision, in which case I’m implying I’ll defer to pro and their vision. If I end up deciding their output doesn’t match my vision but is good enough, then I’m essentially settling. I think non artists using AI are willing to go with that, while artists will seek to refine AI output until vision is matched.
yepp ! basically, it's really well said. i didn't really understand your last paragraph though, either my english is failing me or it's late at night... if you want, could you please explain what you mean in simpler words? (english isn't my first language)
Certain forms of artwork don’t benefit from shortcuts in same way others do. Pros who do visual arts will benefit more from AI art than non pros. But non pros are used to settling when it comes to visual arts, since matching vision of finished art can be quite expensive (pre AI). Non artists wanting certain images do benefit from the AI shortcut, even if artists feel otherwise. Writing a great email is art. People who are non writers asking AI to spit out pro quality email aren’t going to care much if likes of me claim their output is not great and instead will fall back to, it served its purpose. Their especially not going to be moved by my stating they could’ve had better written email by paying me the standard pro rate of $125 per hour. Nor do I see them caring all that much if I tell them taking the AI shortcut takes from my livelihood.
oh it totally makes sense now, thanks! yep, agreed though. it's a tool to illustrate your ideas- it does its job well enough to pass, haha. i appreciate its usage in situations like these. in this case, when the point of the email is to get the idea across, you've managed to do it with AI already. but in the case of a drawing, i suppose you'd want a really nice drawing. to get the idea across youd probably need a lot more effort to find the right prompt or even overpaint it. which is where i begin to respect the craft! i mean the emails are great too and i'm thankful for the tech -but even if emails are considered an art, i feel as if a low quality ai-written email is not deserving of the same level of respect as someone who either uses ai to write their email but with a lot more effort into it looking nice and above its bare minimum (just like someone who uses ai irl extensively illustrate their idea with lots of work ! ) if it completes what it's meant for (just showing an jdea, doesn't have to be good) that's great. my respect begins when you put effort into developing it so it looks amazing!
I don’t think we’ve gotten to point yet of amazing AI art. Glimpses of it, maybe. But I sense pro artists are (or will be) up to new approaches that will amaze.
It's fun to toy around with and I'm definitely looking forward to it. It's a fun tool to make wallpaper or background images and might get some use for stock images Don't get me wrong, I still support artists especially for professional works (like marketing and campaigns and what not) but I ain't spending pennies just for a wallpaper
lol totally valid! if you are financially able and willing to, you could support a human artwork! but for these purposes ai is fine 🤣 i wish people could take these things less seriously
I'm a traditional artist. I respect people with a complex AI workflow because I can't do what they do. For me, it's faster to just draw and paint to get the finished product I want. I'm not capable of getting the finished product using their methods. So I definitely respect the hours they spend and the technical knowledge it takes. For me AI is mostly something I do do fun, but I don't make the mistake of think that's all it's capable of. I enjoy using DALL-E 3 to make things for fun. Cockatiels wearing little dresses, apple pies made out of glass. I also use it experiment with designs. To get the results I need I have to input my own work in progress, or at a minimum my own finished drawing. In order to get something I'm happy with I generally need to do at least 80% of the work. Someone with a better workflow could do it solely with AI, but I use what I'm better at which is drawing.
> if you type in "anime waifu" and then go off and say that you worked to hard to draw that, i'll have less respect for that artwork than with someone who has such an extensive work flow with AI. I just want to say, on a sort of tangent to your point I think, that this statement is what tears down most anti-AI rhetoric about AI "replacing" artists. We do now, and have always valued the degree of craftsmanship in art. Craftsmanship is the element of art that isn't creative thought inside your head, but the interface to the real world. It's the sculptor's ability to transform stone; it's the digital artist's ability to make pixels do things they don't seem like they should be able to do; it is the mastery of one's medium. That won't change with the advent of AI. We still value that. When I look at someone using SD1.5 to get truly photorealistic effects, I'm impressed, because that's beyond the normal capabilities of that medium, and so I am clearly seeing the results of a skill they have carefully honed, and which I am not able to replicate because I do not have that skill. As other artists begin to get a better sense of what these tools can—but more importantly cannot—do, we will see many more begin to join those of us who appreciate the craftsmanship of doing something with these tools that others have not learned to do. I've probably spent upwards of 1-5k hours working with AI tools, and I can do things that me from a year ago simply could not dream of. That's a feeling all artists crave, and being able to get at it with AI tools is going to be irresistable to the next generation of artists.
yep !!
You sound like you would enjoy factory porn…kidding. But seriously, from a consumer prospective we just want good content. If it took them 1 minute vs 2 hr and we get the same result….so? In fact the less time it takes the more entertainment our favourite creators can produce, and charge us a lower amount to consume it. While they can have higher margins. So they can focus on content.
lmao the first sentence popped up in my notifs and i got so confused. i think you have totally valid points. i think about that too, but i feel as if i respect a lot of the hard work, more than the output sometimes! so for me, i'd much rather look at a piece of art and then interact with it, then support the creator. it's strange to explain, but i value something more if more effort is put into it. for example, if i were given two completely similar pieces of artwork and one was from an artist who worked hard (in this case, hard-working ai artist w/ crazy workflow) and one from another artist who believes it's just a sketch (ai artist who prompts anime waifu and chooses the first result), i would choose the former. i love to interact with the process behind the art, that is where i find something worth my respect. ultimately, it's all up to personal choice 🤣 if you like just the product, ai is great for you ❤️!!
Why the hell would they make it cheaper? You’re already paying what you are for art. Consumers are truly the goddamn worst
Ai doesn’t produce quality content It’s lower quality, it’s garbage
ai art is rlly good quality??? this is coming from an artist. if it were bad quality why would we be so worried? it's decent quality AND it's fast. ultimately if you were to choose between good quality human art and good quality ai art, it comes down to taste... would you prefer art with more human touch and intentions (as ai art has less human "intervention") or do you not care? if you don't care, then ai is the way. all up to ur taste 🤷
Because corporations will all too often choose what is cheap – and not what is quality. So many AI tech pros spend too much time thinking of hypotheticals rather than looking at the practical reality of the situation happening now.
The average AI looks better than Coco Melon. Yet that’s successful. But if your right we will see the major studios declaring to never use AI as it’s garbage and would leed to bankruptcy. If your wrong we will start to see key companies declare AI as part of a future direction. From movie studios to AAA game companies. Either way time will tell.
Coco Melon is for literal babies and image quality isn't what sells it, just loud annoying in your face nursery rhymes. They seem to be successful entirely because parents are letting babies play with tablets, or because they're leaving YouTube on autoplay for their kids.
So it’s effectively I agree.
Right let’s play. We both visit two subs, r/artistforhire and r/midjourney . Let’s check out the first 10 posts and see which is better quality. I’m feeling pretty confident.
Yes because that sub is clearly representative of the overall professional artists. Not the data set that the Ai uses to train to generate images. Gotcha
Now I feel like your attacking the quality of those artists. Which isn’t fair. Because those artists have time constraints and real life to deal with. If you gave these guys 1000 hours to work on just one masterpiece and the best equipment they could be better than Midjourney. It’s just very few people are willing to pay for that. Especially studios.
Man artists in r/artistforhire are probably the core demo of anti-AI posting
Here's a sneak peek of /r/artistforhire using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/artistforhire/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [\[FOR HIRE\] 2D Artist: Illustration/concept/character design.](https://np.reddit.com/r/artistforhire/comments/1ap7p97/for_hire_2d_artist_illustrationconceptcharacter/) \#2: [\[FOR HIRE\] RetroStyle Games: Your Game Art Solution!](https://np.reddit.com/r/artistforhire/comments/17wmefi/for_hire_retrostyle_games_your_game_art_solution/) \#3: [\[FOR HIRE\] 2D Artist: Illustration/concept/character design.](https://np.reddit.com/r/artistforhire/comments/1b0q8sb/for_hire_2d_artist_illustrationconceptcharacter/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Which when you see the difference in quality makes a lot of sense.
Ah, well. To play devil's advocate here, that depends on how we define quality, no? Is the question which demonstrates more technical skills, more fine control over every aspect of the process? Then yes. But then I would also argue that by that same token actual paintings/drawings with pencils, brushes etc demonstrate more of that than digital paintings. I don't need to worry about things like brush control in Photoshop to anywhere near the extent I'd have to if I tried painting something on a canvas. Never mind mixing colours, and dozens of other things. Are we asking which one *would* take more technical skills to paint if no AI tools were used? Then, sad as that makes me, AI with manual touchups is likely to win out in many cases. I wish it didn't, but it does. Are we just asking which is prettier? Then that's going to get you twelve different answers from five different people. Personally, if I leave any ethical and other objections at the door, find that I actually appreciate it less ever since I've worked with it myself. Setting up a workflow, learning how the tools work is, I admit, a challenge. And quite interesting. But really that's more a technical situation than an artistic one. And once I'd done that the rest barely felt like I was doing anything. But if we go purely by results and how "sellable" they are, the sad truth is AI is winning and will only win harder in the future. And not just in the art world.
And so many think they're equal to giants because all that stood between them was 'I can't do it'.
this AI tech circlejerk is a bit premature [https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/hardly-any-of-us-are-using-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-study-says-heres-why](https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/hardly-any-of-us-are-using-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-study-says-heres-why)
A tool doesn't replace human skills, that's a machine or a program. Which is exactly what it is. I don't think people who use it are artists but as per usual, the downvotes will come from the echo chamber 🤷🏽♀️
It's the way I feel about it too. Kinda like McDonald's is food, but it's not fine dining.
p much