Forum - View topicINTEREST: Shinchosha Publishes AI-Drawn Manga
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AsleepBySunset
Posts: 217 |
|
|||||
Tools made for artists to draw are an irrelevant comparison, you still have to actual draw to use "MacPaint", and you still have to work to take a photo, you can't just take a photo of a human riding a dragon if you don't set up a prop dragon, get a model or some kind of convincing mannequin, and set up a scene. AI on the other hand lets you type in words, and out comes a picture of anything in any art style which has been invented, it could imitate photography, low poly 3d models, pixel art, retro comic book art, and if a new art style is invented... you don't need any new tools, just retrain the AI on 1000+ pictures in this artstyle, using a shit ton of computers. There won't be any new jobs for artists, any creation an artist makes will be co-opted, without their consent because its for "research",the more prolific they are, the more their art will be coopted and the better the ai will be at imitating, and replacing the artist. AI art is at best, a computer program which replaces the ability for any given artist to ever have to draw, something no artist ever asked for, and at worst, replaces the entire need to have an artist to begin with. If a programmer and artist choose to make a computer program which randomly generates, say, a picture of an anime face... I would respect that, so long as he could explain how his program works and didn't use AI to make it. What AI does is use millions of scraped images and a training process which then generates an algorithm ABSOLUTELY NOBODY understands, if they did understand it, programmers would have made a computer program which generates arbitrary pictures of, say, "hatsune miku in surrealist artstyle" or "elon musk but a barcode". Of course, nobody, using their own human hands has ever made such an algorithm because they don't know how to. And no, using AI to make a black box you don't understand does not count as making something in the context of this thought experiment. And like I said before, people use the black box nature of AI to exploit peoples reasoning, they insist AI "learns" just like humans do, of course, humans do not learn like AI, humans learn using creativity, learn by knowing the difference between facts and falsehoods, and when we learn art, we use emotions, all three things are abilities AI lacks. And they insist using the black box AI is "inspired" like humans which is false, AI is not capable of emotions, inspiration could be described as a mix between creativity and emotion.
This will likely be slowly improved as the technology develops, and even if it didn't... I didn't become an artist because I wanted to type words into Midjourney or StableDiffusion, nor did I become an artist so I could fix errors in AI generated pictures. (Most of which are in that cod conceptart.org artstyle I never liked anyway, but that's besides the point). If these are the only jobs remaining in art... then I rest my case. Art is dead. |
||||||
|
||||||
Wyvern
 Posts: 1571 |
|
|||||
It's even worse than that; it's a machine copying and modifying art drawn by a person, while giving the person no credit or payment. The AI simply regurgitates composite images based on the work of thousands of real artists. Nothing new is created, and talented creators are essentially being stolen from. But hey, at least some company saved money! Last edited by Wyvern on Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
This is not how modeling works. |
||||||
|
||||||
PipimiOden
 Posts: 186 Location: Pennsylvania, USA |
|
|||||
|
I personally just view AI as a fun, stupid little novelty that should never replace hand drawn art when it comes creative works, commercial or otherwise (with the exception of maybe concept art). I do not want people to lose their jobs and such because everyone decided that it would be better to use questionably trained AI to do all the artwork instead. I say questionably trained because there's a lot of copyright infringement involved with the art and photos the ai models are trained off of and we should probably fix that before someone gets sued by disney or nintendo for accidental copyright infringement.
I think AI artwork and such be at the very least separated from the hand drawn stuff so people have a choice of avoiding it if they want to, if not outright banned and/or moved to marketplaces exclusively geared to buying AI created stuff. It might just be me who thinks this though. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Jay_Stone
Posts: 146 |
|
|||||
Isn't that the same as humans normally do? Artists look at other's art as inspiration and maybe pick up certain things to implement it in their own art. In the end it's all just pattern recognition. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Wyvern
Posts: 1571 |
|
|||||
Yeah, that's what they told us two years ago when NFT's first came along. "So what if artists hate it, consumers don't understand it, and it serves no practical purpose other than to make crypto scammers rich? It's new, and therefore automatically better!" The problem with this attitude is it ignores the fact that progress is not as simple as "new thing invented, everything instantly better." The majority of new inventions fail miserably. Just because someone came up with a new way of doing something, doesn't automatically mean there's been an improvement. Art resonates with people because it comes from other people. Art is a form of human communication. You take the human aspect out, people will get bored with it and reject it, no matter how "new" it is. And no, you cannot communicate something meaningful by typing a bunch of prompts until a machine pukes out a recolored mashup of two other people's artworks. In your post you mention how cars and planes eventually replaced horse-drawn carriages. What you forget is that there were hundreds of attempts, both before and after the invention of cars and planes, to replace the current mode of transportation. Nearly all of them failed. Because the technology has to actually be good, be useful, and fill a need beside making money for whatever rich jerk invested in it. You know what was considered the single most advanced vehicle in the world 30 years after the airplane was invented? The Hindenburg. How'd that new technology work out? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
SHD
Posts: 1752 |
|
|||||
No, it's not the same. Artists look at others' art, are inspired by them, interpret them, transform them, or their elements, into something that is their own. (Otherwise it's just plagiarism, I think we can all agree on that.) An artist might look at another person's art and think "huh, the way they did the glitter shading is pretty neat, I'm going to try doing it the same way next time." But AI doesn't do that, it can't do that, because it doesn't know what it's doing. It's just a machine mixing and matching elements according to an algorithm, presenting a picture (or pictures) as a result, and asking the person who requested the art if they're satisfied. It's blindly responding to commands, it can't be inspired, can't interpret or transform according to any creative vision of its own - or that of the person requesting the "art", for that matter, because that person, as well, is at the mercy of the algorithm developed by someone else, so their own input is basically just giving a bunch of keywords and then hoping that the result will be satisfactory. Going with the example above, the AI "art" equivalent is feeding the engine that artist's images that have the neat glitter shading, and then training the engine over and over and over again until you find the right combination of triggers that add the effect to any picture the engine generates. AI "art" is not "art" insofar as we define art as an output of someone with a creative vision, because AI has the same creativity as a well-trained dog, who will bring you the toys you asked for in the order you ask for them, but it doesn't understand what you're trying to achieve by asking it to bring the toys in the first place, and doesn't think of any significance of the fact that it brought them. Last edited by SHD on Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:55 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
The reason AI "exploded" as a phenomenon right now is because Stable Diffusion is an open platform, unlike things like OpenAI. This alone makes me think it's something that is going to stay. Certainly there will be need to review the copyright law in the future.
So? Are you implying that it is immoral? Or what? |
||||||
|
||||||
Puniyo
 Posts: 271 |
|
|||||
Aren't you on this site because you watch anime? That thing where artists draw art for characters and animation frames as a job? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
SHD
Posts: 1752 |
|
|||||
....?? "Or what" should be my question, my friend. How exactly did you go from "AI doesn't interpret creatively, it's like a dog blindly responding to commands" to "IT'S IMMORAL"? Yes man, it's immoral, BURN IT WITH HOLY FIRE AND SALT THE EARTH IN ITS WAKE SO IT SHALL BE FOREVER BARREN. FYI, I am being sarcastic. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
Because I feel it's a moral judgment, that's all. From my own point of view it's a technological achievement and should be praised, not vilified. Again, it's the use that matters. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
chudmaru
Posts: 55 |
|
|||||
I don't think this is a commonly held belief among the average person. I see a lot of people using those AI filters to change their selfies into different art style and they all love it. They don't care a human didn't draw their portrait or anything, they just really enjoy the style of it and now use it for their profile picture or Instagram feed. People only care if something looks nice. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 655 |
|
|||||
Stealing others work is not a groundbreaking new achievement. Unethically, and illegally, using others work for their own profit is an extremely old practice and it sure is weird how many people want to view that as praise worthy while shitting on the work that was stolen. |
||||||
|
||||||
dm
 Subscriber Posts: 1389 |
|
|||||
|
It's mostly just a new medium. Just like photography was.
Good art doesn't just happen --- not even with these advanced AI models. It emerges from the combination of the user and the tool. These generative models are just a different kind of paint-brush for use by someone with skills, and, equally importantly, a knowledge of composition and subject. When photography came along, it really did change the way painters worked. A painting ceased to be judged for its accuracy in representation, and began to be judged by the things the artist brought to the canvas besides the subject matter --- everything from the impressionists to abstract art. Yes, you can type a prompt into these things, but most of what comes out is garbage. It doesn't get good until you've manipulated the image by manipulating the prompts and manipulating the outputs, and that takes an aesthetic and artistic sense that these AI models do not have (and probably can't have, at least not until they're trained by real artists). |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
Stealing = physically remove the item/whatever from circulation. Best case (but the law is not up to par) would be unauthorized use or reproduction, not stealing. It's actually the same fallacy as piracy = stealing. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group