Why cant the people decide if its good ai art and then buy or not buy?
Freedom!
I have no problem with people selling AI art, it’s just… Tell people that’s what you’re doing.
Finding cool images and printing them off to sell to people is a thing people do. Print services have been selling the same thing, more or less. They’re printing the images and that’s worth something.
But don’t lie to me about it. Be upfront about what’s going on, and let the buyer decide. Also, be aware of your surroundings. Don’t go to an art expo and try to sell AI slop. That’s just disrespectful. Maybe do it on a street corner or something idk. Set up a kiosk at the mall.
Context matters.
I mean, I wouldn’t pay for a print of AI slop, but I imagine there are people who see cool pictures and just want to pick them up… That’s not me, but I’m sure that’s someone.
it’s just… Tell people that’s what you’re doing.
and sell at the appropriate TEMU pricing.
deleted by creator
They can generate thousands of slop in hours. So <$1 is fair.
Whatever the market will bear… I think is the phrase.
So is " a sucker is born every minute". Bored Ape Yacht Club is valued at $404M.
If someone is willing to pay that…
deleted by creator
Perhaps don’t call it “art” either since it’s just the result of one’s and zeros spewing out data… those people are not “artists” just talentless hacks…
I do so much art printing pages upon pages of /dev/urandom, please buy some. Computer made it artfully in art form.
if a banana taped to a wall is art than processing millions of images, finding correlation between said images and their captions and using the vectors to find those patterns in noise is art too
A banana taped to the wall has more human expression than any AI generated image
No it’s a scam for money laundering.
human expression has never been a requirement for art, apes can make art too
This is at the core of why you don’t understand anything and everybody is yelling at you and down voting you.
Art is not the same as imaging.
A computer can output imaging. A human artist can output art, which is the human perspective portrayed via imaging.
R. Mutt 1917 flashbacks
Clearly you can’t draw or paint and just another tech nerd happy to denigrate human made artwork as no different from the garbage spat out of a machine with little to no thought other than “draw me in Ghibli style”
Perhaps try understanding what art means and stop trying to equate human made art with mass produced content garbage?
Plenty of other artwork to choose yet funny how people always want to bring up the banana taped to a wall as an example as to why art is nonsense you must be an American 🙄
deleted by creator
The point is, I don’t care about the process so much, I care about the end result
And here a lot of artists would disagree with you. Because for artists, the act of creating is as important as - if not even more important than - the end product. To quote a smart college student’s musings I once heard: “Art is how artists process life experiences.”
The rest I agree with, AI is a tool and the biggest issues with it are the people who are creating it and the people abusing it and making life for artists worse. Adam Savage once said that someday some film student will do something really amazing with AI (and then Hollywood will steal it and copy it into the ground), but that hasn’t happened yet. He said that what he cares about when he looks at a piece is what he can see of the artist in that piece, and with AI, you see nothing.
As an aside, there’s a real conversation to be had about how the word “consumer” has replaced all forms of interaction in our vocabulary. We no longer enjoy or appreciate art - we consume it; we’re not customers, we’re consumers, etc. But that’s not really relevant to the conversation except as a comment on how companies have pushed all forms of enjoyment down to the level of eating a fast food burger.
Other dude doesn’t understand the difference between imaging and art. Art is the human perspective. This apparently is more than they can comprehend.
Honestly, they’re not wrong, it’s just that most people don’t understand that aspect of why artists are so against AI.
Art is also a conversation and a mirror. Entire artistic movements have been dedicated to creating pieces intended to evoke specific feelings in viewers.
The story of the series of paintings titled Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue and the attacks on them are a great example of all of the points that I’ve talked about. As Wikipedia says:
Barnett Newman started the first painting in the series without a preconceived notion of the subject or end result; he only wanted it to be different from what he had done until then, and to be asymmetrical. But after having painted the canvas red, he was confronted with the fact that only the other primary colors yellow and blue would work with it; this led to an inherent confrontation with the works of De Stijl and especially Piet Mondrian, who had in the opinion of Newman turned the combination of the three colors into a didactic idea instead of a means of expression in freedom.
Of the four paintings in the series, two would be attacked with knives, with a second failed attempt on one of them resulting in an attack on another of Newman’s paintings instead. All because of some big canvases with the three primary colors painted on them in simple stripes. The first painting to be attacked is literally a red canvas with a single stripe of blue on one end.
It is sadly, not far removed from how a lot of photography works, especially now.
Take thousands of pictures, pick the few that look good. Even bad photographers get lucky often enough.
I’m not saying it’s the same, there are obvious differences. But it’s not a huge leap.
They don’t want to disclose that’s AI art because people won’t buy it or at least not for the same price as art made by people. AI “artists” mislead for a reason.
I agree, and the picture in the original post is the outcome of that.
If they charge printing fees plus a modest markup, and disclose that it’s AI generated, they’d make fewer sales per hour and less money per sale, but they would be able to operate for more hours and likely go home with more money.
The math on this isn’t hard, but it requires thinking more long term/economically than I’ve ever seen from selfish/capitalistic people who would do this kind of thing.
There’s also the knee jerk reactions. There’s indie games that are being called AI slop.
Theres one game thats $1.50 but getting ripped because the dev admitted to using AI to create the cut scenes. That’s all it was.
My local hardware store has been selling cheap random “art” like this here for as long as I can remember. It’s copy-pasted low-quality slop since way before AI existed. I don’t see any more or less artistic value in a mass-produced print like that versus an AI generated image.
In that context, I really couldn’t care less whether that slop has been made in 5 minutes in paint by some underpaid intern or in 5 minutes using ChatGPT.
But if you go to an art expo with undisclosed AI “art”… well.
I’m with you, btw.
I like this point. Thanks.
I mean, you can spend days refining a prompt while looking at a trillion variations of the same possible image. Then trying to upscale it while improving important details instead of losing them. Then checking textures and backgrounds on photoshop to clean up hallucinations.
Or indeed you can just save a cool image from the midjourney feed and print it. There’s no real moral dillema yet because most people aren’t trying to do art with difusion models.
No moral dilemma, but also no legal issue since AI doesn’t get copyright protection.
I mean Thomas Kinkade built an empire on basically the same bullshit so like, a lot of people will do it. Although at one point he was selling his own brand of slop as an investment.
I have half a mind to print this whole lemmy thread and try to sell it.
It’s possible for ‘AI art’ to not be crap.
One can use sophisticated tools, like depth maps and controlnet, to compose an image/video in all sorts of ways. One can spend hours touching up a generation in photoshop, like, you know, an artist that actually cares about what they’re presenting. One can use models that don’t feed blood sucking corporations. And like you said, one can disclose the whole process, upfront.
It’s just that the vast majority is crap from a few keywords mashed into ChatGPT, with zero deliberate thought in the work and that full ‘tech bro quick scam’ vibe.
So I guess what I’m saying is this:
Tell people that’s what you’re doing.
Is an unlikely scenario.
“AI artists” seem to be scammers. They will lie about their process. That’s who will attend things like this.
Meanwhile, the few hobbyist artists with diffusion in their creative pipeline would never dare show up to a place like this, because of the scammers ruining any hope of a civil reception.
It’s also important to remember these models are trained by sampling (imitating aspects of) images they don’t have the rights to use directly. I think it’s justified being angry about someone using your work -insignificantly mashed together with millions of other people’s work- without your permission, even if it’s to extend a background by 10 pixels lol
Not all them. Some are trained on pure public domain data (though admittedly most folks running locally are probably using Flux or Stable Diffusion out of convenience).
And IMO that’s less of an issue if money isn’t changing hands. If the model is free, and the “art” is free, that’s a transformative work and fair use.
It’s like publishing a fanfic based on a copyrighted body. But try to sell the fic (or sell a service to facilitate such a thing), and that’s a whole different duck.
50 Shades of Grey be like…
Yeah, that’s an interesting case.
I guess there was no incentive for Stephenie Meyers and E. L. James (and their movie adaptation money banks, Lionsgate and Universal) to sue. But apparently it was brought up in some kind of lawsuit over an actual pornographic adaptation:
In June 2012, the film company Smash Pictures announced its intent to film a pornographic version of the Fifty Shades book trilogy…
Smash Pictures responded to the lawsuit by issuing a counterclaim and requesting a continuance, stating that “much or all” of the Fifty Shades material was part of the public domain because it was originally published in various venues as a fan fiction based on the Twilight series. A lawyer for Smash Pictures further commented that the federal copyright registrations for the books were “invalid and unenforceable” and that the film “did not violate copyright or trademark laws”.[206] The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum and Smash Pictures agreed to stop any further production or promotion of the film.[207]
A surprising number of people don’t know that it’s essentially Twilight fanfic with the names changed to protect the author from being sued.
It’s also important to remember these models are trained by sampling (imitating aspects of) images they don’t have the rights to use directly.
So is basically every human artist. Basically any artist out there has seen tons of other art prior and draws on that observed corpus to influence their own output. If I commissioned you to draw something you didn’t know what was, you’d go look up other depictions of that thing to get a basis for what you should be aiming at.
The way AI does it is similar, except that it’s looked at way more examples than you but also doesn’t have an understanding of what those things actually are beyond the examples themselves. That last bit is why it used to have so many problems with hands, and still often has problems with writing in the background or desk/table legs.
We can actually look at a hand, and understand it, logically thinking about the composition and style to work with. AI can only copy paste the difference of pixels’ colors on digital images whose metadata happens to contains the word ‘hand’. No matter how many ‘examples’ have been scraped, it can’t actually interpret them the same way we do.
If some alien species asked you to draw part of it’s anatomy that can move into a wide array of configurations, but you are required to do so based only on pictures the aliens sent you that they tell you shows that part among other things, would you do better?
Like, what you said is specifically why it’s bad at hands and table legs and the like - they can appear in many different ways and it’s only reference point for them is pictures of them it’s seen. You understand hands and think logically about them mostly because you have a not just wider but deeper set of experiences to work from. Even then, 4 fingered hands have been common in cartoons because even having hands, being surrounded by other beings with hands and in a culture that makes heavy use of hands a lot of artists have trouble doing them quite right.
Yes, I would do better. I would take a look at the pictures, and think about the angles / geometry, the reason of differences between the pictures, and being able to count sure helps. If they were to show me pictures in a vastly different style, I would make assumptions, like it is a different representation of the same concept. I would not just mash them together based on color values.
I get what you’re coming from, but the only reason these models seem to be able to get stuff done, is the insane amount of training data and iterations.
Enjoying this discussion, by the way! It’s fun to think about.
It’s also important to remember these models are trained by sampling
IMO, training software on the corpus of human art without payment or attribution is not good for society and art in general, but, humans who create non-abstract are trained and honestly create in a strikingly similar way. The person hired to make an art piece of Catherine the Great doesn’t disclose that he looked at Alexander Roslin’s painting of her and is greatly copying the look and feel for the face or the Google search they used to find options for 1700’s royal clothing. The big difference in process between AI and an artist with reference art is the removal of the human element, and that’s super important.
But instead, we focus on how it was trained, when we train much the same way, or we call it all slop regardless of the actual quality, instead of calling out the real problem, the one problem that we can do something about, it’s taking a living away from humans.
Slop machines have more in common with tracing than with learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-5mZ_9CPY
You can hate the output, you can hate copying the IP, you can hate the people involved, but the process is nothing like tracing. It’s closer to black fucking magic :)
It’s not magic.
You’re in a cult.
It’s not magic.
It’s closer to black magic than tracing. It’s really closer to sculpting. You take a machine, show it a few million pictures of dogs to teach it what dogs look like, then hand it a big block of white noise and ask it to show you a dog. It then carves away all the parts it doesn’t think look like dog, repeats until the result doesn’t change much and shows you the dog it essentially hallucinated out of the noise.
funny, I didn’t feel like a kettle this morning.
anyway have a good one
for 1700s* royal clothing
Holy shit, this brought a big smile to my face today, thank you! 😄
Can’t even run cons at cons anymore. What’s the world coming to?
It’s dragoncon, the con needs to be ran by a dragon
Kevin O’Leary?
I bet this guy was selling AI images of a dragon playing the 3-cup-game with another dragon pretending to be in on it to build hype.
of course not, you don’t want to mess with recursions in production
They should throw a con at the main source of cons: the constitution!
Removed by mod
Damn, I wish I had seen that in person. (I barely visited that part of the con – I made a beeline to Bil Holbrook’s booth to congratulate him on 30 years of Kevin and Kell, and then left again because I was in a hurry to get to a panel.)
That is a name I hadn’t thought of for awhile. I should go read it again, got a decade to catch up on!
I’ll be honest: I hadn’t thought of it in a while either, until I ran across this post the other day. I used to read it in the newspaper, but quit subscribing and neglected to add it to my webcomic bookmarks, so I need to catch up too!
You love to see it!
Now penalize all corporations for using it and boycott any you catch doing so. Its nearly impossible. But we can try. Fuck the theft of art and humanity.
I like the coffee stain there. Makes it seem more like he got black bagged than asked forcefully to leave.
Oh man… I’m gonna be on the lookout for this garbage when I’m at BLFC. I don’t want to end up giving money to a fraud.
I saw something about the cops being called on them or another vendor selling ai art, which is as hilarious as it is maybe a bit overkill.
From what I’ve read, it was because they refused to leave.
Yeah that makes sense.
Apparently, it was a regular artist who got the booth (you have to send images to the organizers of what you’re going to sell), but her boyfriend did some AI art and swapped it in on the second day.
I haven’t seen any mention of that, the person knew they were selling ai slop and were arrogant about it.
swapped it in
With the knowledge of the girlfriend? That’s scummy. Without? Pretty fucked up.
Surely she would have to be aware of it? It can’t possibly be good to have no recollection or recognition of what it is you’re selling.
deleted by creator
Apparently from what I heard, Toronto comic con was full of Ai art tables. They have to be the most disorganized convention I’ve ever seen, they don’t care about security, safety, fire codes, overcrowding,etc. every year it gets bigger and the venue doesn’t, it’s not even fun anymore
I get that it might be “obvious” in this case, but how do they actually prove it?
There are lots of artists that get called AI because theiir style is the kind that AI uses. So how do they make sure they dont kick one of those people out.
There are many tells for AI art.
My favourites are:
-
Look for a long thing that is briefly interrupted by something covering it. A good one is, say, the button line of a shirt that has a crossing shoulder belt or the like. Another is a long branch that goes behind another object like a person. Yet another is a walking stick that goes behind a cloak or sword or something. Almost invariably the line does not match on each side of the interrupting object. Often it doesn’t even continue at all. So with the buttons, you’ll see the line of buttons, the belt … and then just fabric. Or the buttons have jumped to the left by half a torso. Or some other such artifact.
-
Talking of buttons, look for buttons that don’t do anything. Like a line of buttons on what looks like a sweatshirt or the like: i.e. no gap that needs buttoning. Or buttons that look like they’re buttoning the shirt into the jacket. Or buttons that parallel the main, legit button line temporarily for no reason. (And no, I don’t mean double-breasted jackets!) Or buttons that change styles for no reason. Slopmongers have a very hard time making buttons consistent.
-
Text. 'Nuff said. Even the newer models still fuck this up, usually either by having gibberish that only resembles writing if you flash over it quickly with your eyes, or by having text with terrible spelling, weird artifacts that has the text growing into or out of other things, or text that sounds like it was robotically generated.
-
Appendages. It’s amazing to me that after all this time and money was spent, you still can’t get consistent numbers of fingers, thumbs, toes, or even primary limbs. We all know the finger thing, but how may times have you noticed the phantom extra hand or two?
-
Eyes. Eyes are usually well drawn, actually, but they tend to look everywhere and anywhere but where it might make sense.
All of these flaws (and many, many more) are a result of the slopmaker not having any kind of model of what it’s making. Lines stop or shift for no reason because it doesn’t know that the line on one side of an obstacle is the same as the line on the other. Eyes don’t look at sensible things because it has no idea what the picture is of and thus no idea where eyes would naturally be directed. In general look for things that require a coherent mental model to do right and you’ll spot the AI in no time flat.
All these can be touched up if the maker is actually trying to put any effort into it.
But if they’re just using diffusion as a stencil or editor, and they disclose the process… That’s fine, really. That’s more akin to extensively using photoshop.
-
Just like speed running, artists will now have to video tape their process if done digitally. I think Photoshop documents as well as other formats can track version history.
Artists have been doing exactly that for decades. I used to run a larger art community around 2016-2018 and providing several in-progress sketches or a video was a minimum requirement for being featured on the homepage. It made sure that people didn’t just literally download someone else’s work and put their signature on it.
deleted by creator
I dibt think artist shoukd have to prove that though. Abd while im sure its pretty uncommon this would stop an artist sending someone else to a con to sell their works if they cant make it themselves.
Or would be fairly easy to spoof, maybe the guy selling AI can actually draw well enough to put a rough sketch down, or can pull someone elses vod as proof.
deleted by creator
I dibt think artist shoukd have to prove that though.
They don’t have to. But if they don’t prove that they made it themselves, they’re going to face a serious loss in reputation and sales in the face of a public that’s getting tired of AI slop.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is /c/fuck_ai, not /c/pretend_ai_is_only_partly_a_scam .
There is no baby in the bathwater. And the bathwater is sewage.
There’s no baby. Slop belongs in the trash.
This reminds me so much of the HDR photo craze. I remember seeing booths just like this!
Going to local restaurants/attractions and seeing shitty “art” with price tags starting over $200. They were all bad digital photos, taken with no comprehension or awareness of lighting, perspective, composition, etc. Cloddishly fiddle with various sliders, maybe delete the entire green color channel for some reason, hey I discovered this filter called Posterize, hit print.
A third of them were angle shots of the photo-takers modded Subaru. I’m trying to paint a picture here, don’t take it literally.
I am sincerely hoping, despite my positions against AI for most applications, that there will be some positive effects in the end from this AIArt baloney.
I think the same-y-ness of what the visual generators are outputting will wear so thin on people, so quickly. Because in a broad sense they’re all drawing from the same “averaging out”. And maybe there will be a bit of a cultural backlash, if you will, where people unconsciously become attracted back to hand made things. I don’t think we as a huge collective blob of humanity will be able to stand hearing the same note over and over.
Maybe I’m deluding myself, hell I probably am to a degree.
This reminds me of an old story I heard about how a very talented pottery artist got a lifetime ban from the handcraft fair for selling molded products (pottery made with molds, not by hand).
It was interesting because his quality items actually were handcrafted, he just had molded basic stuff on the side that I guess was selling decently well.
Would be funny if an AI booth did the same.
I’m getting into some anime art. I never really liked the art style of a lot of it but I’ve found a couple artist that do really beautiful works. What’s a good source for finding artist that are similar to artist you like already?
One thing that bothers me about most of anime art is that it’s just filled with drawings of female characters with balloons on their chest.
I don’t even mind artist doing nudity or “sexy” artwork. My favorite artist I found primarily does that. But it’s so hard to find good art even if it’s not AI. I feel like most of it is just drawn by 30 year old virgins that have never seen a women’s body before.
Edit: Soranamae is my favorite artist I’ve found. Most is NSFW stuff. I wish they had more variety or did different characters more because their art is beautiful. The saddest thing I found was some AI model trained specifically to mimic their art style. Made me upset.
Pixiv is a site that was made for japanese artists, though it’s technically open to anyone.
An unconventional way is to look for artists from yearly releases. I have 2022 of this one:
https://united-states.kinokuniya.com/bw/9784046848000
And you can even find regional artists from similar artbooks
https://www.tcb.tw/en/news/596
Edit: I forgot to mention but you don’t have to purchase the physical book, you can find the features artists like so:
Pixiv is what I’ve been using. I guess I should research Japanese tags better. I really wish there was a “no balloons” or just a “natural looking” tag to filter it. I will definitely look at the artists other artists interact or follow though. That’s a good idea.
Another note is that if you use any social media with following:followers, popular artists usually have their mutual artist circle as followed, so you can bounce around artists just by looking at who they follow.
