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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
L'Imperatore
 Posts: 858 |
|
|||
|
Throw them to the market. Let the market be the judge.
Opinions are opinions. Sales number is fact. |
||||
|
||||
|
Keen Fox
Posts: 139 |
|
|||
|
I do not like the art of this manga. Seems pretty artificial and does not have character.
Also remember that A.I actually steals images from the internet and meshes them together. That is how A.I works as a neural process for the time being. Every image on Google on internet acts as a big library. A.I art should not be accepted and should only be used when there is guaranteed there is no stealing. Art is something humans create. Also check the video on youtube from Hayao Miyazaki talking about A.I some years ago. Death to A.I. |
||||
|
||||
|
SHD
Posts: 1752 |
|
|||
Yeeeah, no. The market will say "Oh hey, this thing produces decent quality with a fraction of the cost? HELL YEAH, give it to me! Ethical problems, what ethical problems." It's not about people doing and selling full manga using AI generators, that's silly (at least at this point). It's about say, illustrators not getting a job illustrating books or advertisements, etc. because AI can generate a decent enough image, based on all the artwork and fanart in its database that was put there without the artists' permission. It's already at the point where people are making money from selling images that they claim to have created but actually generated using AI, as such making money from other people's work in the engine's database. I mean, I just generated this and this in Midjourney, with very simple keywords. Sure, they're wonky if you look at them more closely, but even without any further fiddling they'd do a decent job as a small image slapped on an ad, or a cover for a LN where the wonky parts would be covered by text anyway, or something, and the wonky parts can be easily fixed. So it's absolutely not unthinkable that a company will just use AI to generate an image for that purpose, instead of paying an artist to create it. To say nothing of compensating the artists whose works were used to generate the image in the first place... |
||||
|
||||
|
db999
Posts: 304 |
|
|||
I agree with this an in fact I’d go further in saying that AI Art looking bad is a feature not a bug because the reason it became popular was because how weird and bad some of the images look. Even the best AI images aren’t that amazing and have stuff about it that’s just plain bad looking. Liking AI Art is kind of like people enjoying The Room or Birdemic, or to bring in an anime example Ex-Arm. It's bad but bad in ways that are entertaining, even if there are some people looking at this type of art only at a glance and saying it looks good. |
||||
|
||||
NeverConvex
 Subscriber Posts: 2344 |
|
|||
|
I wonder if the recent spate of image/chat generation NNs will spur any kind've review of copyright/patent/intellectual property laws related to them. I've considered using earlier generations of neural networks in some of my own work, but, because they're often trained on large corpuses of publicly available but not publicly owned input samples (and frequently even memorize individual input samples -- despite that not being the intent, and also of course generating interesting novelty distinct from the training data), was always a bit cautious of getting too dependent on them, since it seems like case law could develop in unpredictable ways to compensate the owners of the images/chat samples that were used to fit the models originally. As of a few years ago, US law didn't seem to have really grappled with this at all, but as artificial neural networks become increasingly disruptive to traditional business models, it's hard to imagine there won't be some major judicial decision or legislation penned about it in the next 5-10 years.
|
||||
|
||||
marshmallowpie
 Posts: 300 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada |
|
|||
|
What I'd like to know is... what's the source of the data set used to create the images in this manga? Were the people who created those images compensated? That's the biggest issue, but, no, never gonna see me supporting something like this.
Real art doesn't just come from the influences of other art you've seen before (which no human could copy 100% anyway), it's influenced by your own feelings and life experiences and all these things that may not even have a visual form. When I think of the struggles my favourite manga creators have gone through, it adds to the impact of their work. I'm sure even the most successful mangaka have had doubts in their abilities at some point. Or there are so many mangaka who have struggles with physical or mental illness, but didn't let that stop them from bringing their story to life. When it comes to manga, this just isn't it.
Because painting and drawings can do things photos can never do, for example stylized stuff like anime? However... have you ever looked at the envelope on an old sewing pattern? Or an advertisement from before cameras were common? Things like this used to have drawings in them, but you're never going to receive a flyer from your grocery store with drawings instead of photographs. Another example are those painted romance novel covers that were big in the 80s. I don't read those kind of novels, but it seems like they're no longer a thing and have been replaced with photos. |
||||
|
||||
|
NeverConvex
Subscriber Posts: 2344 |
|
|||
This is what my reply just above yours is about, too; I think, currently, there's no law (at least in the US; and I doubt elsewhere, either) that compensation for training data is necessary, and that common (universal, really, as best I can tell) practice is to develop large corpuses of training material (albeit often with significant manual intervention to tag and label them and such) without compensating the people who originally created that training material. And I agree with you; that situation seems a bit odd. There is quite a lot of work that goes into training a neural network, mathematically reasoning about and computationally experimenting to figure out what training procedures work well and what don't, writing code to train them, money expended to do the literal computation to figure out their parameters, and so forth; that is quite distinct from the input images, and while it isn't felt or artistic in a traditional sense, it is certainly novel and a pretty breath-taking intellectual achievement. But it is also true that they could not be useful without large corpuses of training images, that they can be used to imitate styles in a way that feels narrowly plagiaristic (especially if you focused training inputs and procedures on a specific artist's work, though that's not how these general-purpose ones are trained), and that they often even outright memorize individual images from their training data. I think the current uncompensated situation has mostly persisted until now because prior to 5 or so years ago artificial neural networks were mostly academic curiosities in every area except for image recognition, and there hasn't really been very much case law about them. Also, the parties harmed are large, diverse, uncoordinated, and their individual contributions only used in small ways, which probably makes developing lawsuits harder and slows down the process, I'd guess? Seems like it fits roughly into the frame of a class-action lawsuit, but in an area that requires legal expertise with cutting-edge tech and mathematics. |
||||
|
||||
|
@ASAnime6
Posts: 389 |
|
|||
|
It looks bad and so much missing details or just strange looking parts
|
||||
|
||||
King Chicken
 Posts: 100 |
|
|||
Nah, they obviously just copied Bill Sienkiewicz's art style. Melting appendages and horrific proportions and all! Jokes aside, I think most arguments against AI art fall apart if you accept the facts like there's a lot of bad art out there done by human hands so one can't argue about quality when bad human artists are a plenty. Whoever kickstarted that trend of bland, soulless, minimalistic corporates art style you see everywhere these days is one particular enemy I have. And a lot of plagarists and art stealing done by professional artists who never are held accountable. If Greg Land can still get work from Marvel to this day and age with decades of tracing photographs and other peoples art then complaining an AI looked at someone's art to learn an algorithm doesn't seem bad by comparison. And that's not going into the more sinister examples like more prominent artists taking credit for a smaller artists work. The world of art has a lot of bad things already without the need for people to imply AI is somehow going to ruin it. Personally, if AI art can do better than most bad artstyles you see today then I have no problem with it. |
||||
|
||||
dm
Subscriber Posts: 1389 |
|
|||
I'm afraid I don't know how strong this argument is. Those artists haven't consented to have art students examine and learn from their work (fed into a human learning algorithm), either, yet no one complains about the ethics of studying art, even when someone imitates the style of a specific artist. There's a whole series of "Drawing lessons from the great masters" books, after all. Thus stuff is just a tool for artists to use. In mediocre hands it will produce mediocre images. In talented hands, it may be able to produce great art. Art is more than putting representational images on a page. In response to the comparison with photography, someone mentioned that you no longer see hand-drawn imagery on dress patterns and the like, instead you see photographs. Thus is true, but the photographer is probably paid as well, or better than the commercial artists were in "the old days". |
||||
|
||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4622 |
|
|||
So because real artists can sometimes do shitty things then it's okay to steal a bunch of art to train an algorithm to replace them? That's...some ethical argument you have there. |
||||
|
||||
|
Viren21
Posts: 49 |
|
|||
|
That's a good news and a little step forward for people that uses the tool.
I'm really curious now on how people would react if a popular digital artist famous for drawing his own art but suddenly go with an assisted by AI and didn't at least let his fans know it is assisted by one. |
||||
|
||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3461 Location: Finland |
|
|||
That's because any particular style cannot be copyrighted. That's applicable whether the new art is created by a real person or an AI, neither is breaching any copyright by simply using a pre-existing style. On this debate I'm on the side of these new tools. Either way, there's no stopping it now. |
||||
|
||||
|
reynado
Posts: 18 |
|
|||
Well... at least you're honest that you know you're in the unpopular/minority opinion and the average person has no issue with these things? The free market always seems to be scary to the people who know they can't succeed without outside help or pressure to influence people. |
||||
|
||||
|
SHD
Posts: 1752 |
|
|||
Ouch! Careful, my eyes are going to roll out of their sockets at this rate... Also, something about excrement and a billion flies. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group