At that time, instead human using machine as a tool to finish his job.
It was machine using human as a tool to finish their job.
And that is so fukken sad. As a machine operator myself, i know how mindless or how passionless that kind of job is.
Please. I know @lenovoaxioo wanted to vent about its personal struggle with Pixiv. However it sure makes sense as is the same discussion as the other topic at this point.
1 Like
Yes you can
I don’t think this “Artificial Intelligence” will replace artists. First, the very term “intelligence” is misleading: the machine only does what it is programmed to do. True, human beings also follow this path… but at some point, we stop following the path to take a new one.
It is also necessary to see the side of those who buy, who consume the art. Ever heard of Shutterstock? It’s an image bank. In it, for example, there are thousands of drawings of roses: if you are a subscriber, just choose and download them, in high resolution.
But many clients didn’t want “thousands of roses”: they wanted a rose just like the one in the sample they saw… and I drew it for them.
And the place of affect? It is up to us to try to show that it is a work done with love, something that the machine is not able to do.
Personally, like many people, I had a moment of demotivation, but after all that pushes us to question ourselves, to find what motivates us to draw and that makes me want to go back to tradi…
I’m a begginer too. 
Drawing it’s healthy activity for our brain. A.I. doesn’t enjoy it, doesn’t feel etc. Everything depends on people activity. We don’t exchange the Internet to pigeons again. In the past we have pictures only, after that photography and movie art.
I share with you point of view Cassie Kozyrkov /Google’s machine learning specialist/ about drawing by A.I.: DALL·E 2 Demo 2 - YouTube
At this point I’m honestly wondering if ai would replace cartoon making/Disney style art or even making comics/webtoons/manga as a whole.
though I doubt it; I can’t help but wonder. (though I feel like Disney Lawyers will have a field day if Ai do come for Disney official artworks maybe.)
AI can’t replace human artistic inputs, but can totally assist mediocre artists or even non artists to achieve pro level works in commercial arts. It definitely will affect many skillful artists in the entertainment industry who have spent years to level up their skills.
Artists can probably still be valuable by, such as doing live streaming…if people love to watch art creation process.
I have a feeling most of the lawyers will be replaced by AI too in the future, not all of them but many of them are definitely replaceable…
I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, if ever. For this, the AI would not only have to be able to create individual images that meet certain specifications for their appearance, but would also have to be able to follow the development of a plot of the story to be told. Keep in mind that images and motion sequences must fit together, sometimes the individual images, the frames, merge into one another as a creative element or to heighten the dramaturgy. A protagonist “jumps” to the next scene, room, etc.
At the moment I don’t think this is feasible, it may be possible in the hopefully far distant future, but I don’t like the idea.
Michelist
1 Like
Well, for me human art should be based on passion, original ideas and execution. It is supposed to require time, sweat or blood. 
Let A.I.'s works stick to themselves as a separate branch of art that can generate some reasonably sensible images on its own but not rely heavily on the work of well-known artists who have not even given permission. 
Exactly that.
I expressly refuse to call the result of these generators “art”, for me these are no more than results of a calculation task. Computational results thus. Mathematics in itself I find beautiful, everything is just logic.
There are also beautiful looking results of these image generators, but that does not elevate them to the status of art and does not distinguish them from other pretty looking things. Neither a sunset, tree nor mountain is art, although they are mostly nice to look at.
Michelist
1 Like
I don’t know why people want to automate away good things. I can understand the desire to be free of unpleasant, but necessary tasks—those get in the way of what you want to do—but if we do the same with the things we want to do, what does that leave? If I could have an AI make things for me, then what? What are those things for? They no longer express any feeling or effort of mine. I could show them to other people, for a little while. But as it gets ever easier for them to generate their own, and machines can output so much, so fast, why should they sift through millions and see mine, when the same creator works for them?
The only AI I would want is one that learns from me, and augments my own process, to serve as an upgrade facilitating my expression rather than a replacement that simply gives me what I tell it. I want to enhance myself, not replace myself. I have no desire for my existence to become purely about consumption and nothing else. I would rather not exist at all.
7 Likes
that honestly reassuring, thank You 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSxFAGP9Ss
This is Steven Zapata’s newest video about AI art, where he lays out several arguments against it. He has mentioned it many times on his stream, some of which I have checked out. I have been waiting for it to see what he concisely wants to say, and so that in order to bring up some of his arguments I wouldn’t have to link hours of stream vods.
Since I did see some of his streams I was already familiar with a lot of his arguments and while I might not agree with all of them to a 100% I consider this video the best I have seen for arguments against the current state of AI art generation. Especially the first point about the stretching of the definition of a non-profit and the point near the end about the double standard between visual artists and musician I would consider undisputably messed up as it requires 0 speculation about the future and I do not think anyone would consider them moral. A lot of the other points do at least require a little bit of fortune telling, but I do not think that they are unrealistic at all.
Maybe it is just me but when I look at the current world and the current discourse around AI I cannot help but think of the most cynical usage cases and feel that the current AI research teams do not understand artists and do not care.
8 Likes
Recently on my job…just as an ideation process my contractor asked me to generate some AI images via Midjourney for character design…Honestly while it did gave an interesting choice for coloring based on the inputs we gave it. As a design…he thought it was cool, but from my prespective it was crap.
Now I’m saying that not because I’m human, honestly if the AI gave a good result we could had used it…probably refine it a bit. But yeah…in my opinion, based on small experience I had, most of what the AI generates is junk. It will still require a human to evaluate and do the creative process to finalize a workable product.
That being said I saw some cool paintings but in the end most of them tend to get really reppetitive, generated. I have a feeling people are super excited because it’s something we haven’t seen being done before, but maybe it’s not necessary better.
Maybe in 10-20 years it will be super amazing, but it my oppinion as of now is that it will always look computer generated…much like motion capture, and stylized 3d animation imitating a cell shading 2d look.
2 Likes
Very good video. I didn’t even know that there’s a music AI in the making that only uses free works and is opt-in. But I doubt it’s because of respect for artists but instead because of big music labels, it’s a billion dollar industry after all and they’re quick and efficient with their lawyers to the point they sue teenagers for millions. But visual art? If it’s not movies maybe then there’s nothing that really compares. Where I live there’s a country wide organisation just for collecting fees and managing music rights (if you want it as a musician or not, which is another issue) but for visual or fine art, every artist is basically on their own. And I think that’s where their double standard (mentioned in the video) comes from, not because they suddenly have respect for other types of artists. It’s just because the music industry (the big labels and not so much individual artists) has shown to fight hard and they proved they can win any battle and destroy any opponent. That’s what the AI companies are afraid of.
2 Likes
Just watched the video and I have to say…those are good points.
I think he is correct there when he says that our participation in it will make it better. Thus I personally don’t intend to use it.
2 Likes
There is no one answer to this question as it is a matter of personal opinion. Some people believe that artificial intelligence can never create art that is on the same level as art created by humans. This is because AI lacks the ability to understand and experience emotions, which are essential for creating truly great art. Others believe that AI has the potential to create art that is even better than what humans are capable of. This is because AI is not limited by our human biases and can explore ideas in ways that we never could. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they believe that artificial intelligence can create great art.
By definition, machines cannot create art, because the machines themselves lack certain necessary abilities and characteristics.
We should avoid calling it art. On the one hand, to distance ourselves in this way from these manufactured works and their mode of production. And on the other hand, to make other people aware that it is exactly one thing not, art. And maybe (hopefully) it is possible to transport the fears and needs of the artists, who have to live from their work as artists and whose existence can be threatened by AI image generators. As long as we ourselves as artists call these products’ art, so long we give this mass commodity a value, even if it is only an imaginary value. Thereby, it is no more than a (possibly) pretty looking calculation result.
If an artist presents himself in relation to these AI images as threatened by “works of art”, then he admits that a machine has created a work of higher artistic value, this should be avoided as far as possible. Just as these AI disciples want to bring their cause among the people, we have to defend ourselves against it. With the power of words. We are not threatened by AI art, but by the fact that one would like to assign the status of art to these pictures!
In particular, no machine will ever have an own idea, only more starting points of the calculations, by the continuously improved pattern recognition and ever more training data sets. At best, “fuzzy elements” in the program code, as well as improved AI software, and the year after year more and more massive computing power can lead to larger spreads and a higher number of results. In this way, the yield of images considered beautiful by us humans is increased, the waste of course also, because the machine has no sense of what humans find beautiful, it only calculates image for image for image for…
But it is always just about pattern recognition and applying the ever more refined algorithms to the base, or stack, of available training data. And yes, there can be nice looking results at the end of the underlying computational processes, but this fact does not make these computational results thereby art, nor did they arise from an idea. A machine is neither creative nor can it create something out of its own will and drive. It is always based on an order in the form of a computational task to be solved.
Reduced to the minimum (exaggeration), I put a sheet of paper into a printer, which adds colors programmatically and outputs a printed sheet of paper.
I quote for it in excerpts the introduction to the topic art from the German-language Wikipedia, from me freely translated and partly shortened, >>Link<<, and additionally the >>Link<< to the English-language expenditure of the Wikipedia:
In the broadest sense, the word art denotes any developed
activity of human beings based on knowledge, practice,
perception, imagination and intuition. In a narrower sense, it
designates results of purposeful human activity that are not
clearly defined by functions.
Art is a human cultural product, the result of a creative
process. The artwork is usually at the end of this process, but it
can also be the process or procedure itself. Like art as a
whole, the work of art itself is characterized by the interaction
of content and form. Practitioners of art in the narrower sense
are called artists.
Since the Enlightenment, art has been understood primarily as
the forms of expression of the fine arts:
visual arts with the classical genres of painting and graphics,
sculpture, architecture and several small forms, as well as
since the 19th century the arts and crafts, commercial art or
applied art called the border area to arts and crafts
Music with the main branches of composition and
interpretation in vocal and instrumental music. Genres of music
(by function or instrumentation).
Literature with the main genres of epic, dramatic, lyric and
essay writing.
Performing arts with the main genres of theater, dance, and
film.
Forms of expression and techniques of art have expanded
greatly since the beginning of modernity, for example with
photography in the visual arts or with the establishment of
comics as a combination of visual art with the narrativity of
literature. In the case of the performing arts, music and
literature, forms of expression of the new media such as radio,
television, advertising and the Internet can also be added
today. The classical classification has been losing importance
since the last decades of the 20th century at the latest.
With these computer-generated pictures one will never be able to discuss over it what the computer, with the computation of a picture, may have thought whether he wanted to tell us something with the picture, which sense it is to have, or which he would like to cause thereby. These images lack everything that constitutes art.
So, why shall we call it art?
Artificial “Intelligence” can’t, it has no mind, only raw computational power and good written software.
Michelist
2 Likes
When you think about it, isn’t this a perfect description of what a human brain does?
If you have one image by a machine and one by a human and can’t tell which is which, are any of them art? Are both?
2 Likes