The impact of AI-generated art on traditional artists and the creative industry?
- Thread starter dreski
- Start date
- Replies 13
- Views 924
2 Years of Service
No one knows what future AI will or won't be capable of - beyond the likelihood that AI mistakes will decrease as models get better. We can only speak about the current state of affairs.
Is AI going to replace human artists? Not at large scales, any time soon. Skilled artists can use it to create things they could not before, or to create more things than they could before. Unskilled "artists" (I include myself here) will use it to smear the walls with shit like a lunatic asylum. Is that good or bad? I don't know. There may end up being too much noise that drowns out the legitimate art, but tbh, the internet was already that way before AI came around.
Some artists absolutely will be impacted negatively, mostly by stupid bosses who think they can do just as good of a job by asking an AI to do what their artist was doing; they will probably be disappointed with the result, but too proud to admit their error.
IMO, the no-effort garbage that most users create with AI does not qualify for the label "art". Almost all of it looks like crap. Almost all of it is unoriginal. If you're willing to put time and effort into learning how to use the tools, and get your hands dirty, you can use AI to make some pretty pictures that maybe qualify as art. A true artist can use AI to make magic happen. There absolutely is an element of the human in true art created with AI, even if none of the pixels are placed by a human hand.
When it comes to style... legally speaking, nobody can own a style. Without even bringing AI into the equation, you can copy the style of whatever artist you like as much as you want. If you want to draw a scene in Miyazaki's style from Spirited Away, you can. If you want to create a 3d character in the Pixar animation style, you can. Style is not legally protected. Of course, whether something is legal is distinct from whether it is ethical, but it is a reasonable starting point for that discussion.
I don't think there is inherently any difference between humans copying a style and AI copying a style. I ground that in the argument that AI training from existing art is fundamentally no different from humans learning from existing art, and learning from art is one of the core exceptions to copyright - not just from a legal perspective, but from an ethical one. If AI learning from art is ethical, then any application of that learning that would be ethical for a human to do is also ethical for the AI. AI applying a style it learned is no different from a human applying a style s/he learned. On top of that, AI is just a tool: tools do not inherently have moral or ethical values, that comes from their use, which brings the human back into the equation. Either copying styles is ethical, irrespective of the tools used, or it isn't. AI isn't a factor.
1 Year of Service
There is no novel, powerful, infinitely- and rapidly-growing anything that doesn't eventually and severely disrupt the status quo. Regardless of how you think things are gonna go, you gotta learn about AI one way or the other. It will eventually, probably soon, reach a stage where humans have to deal with it like a sapient lifeform. Considering how we deal with other sapient lifeforms (ourselves), it can honestly go either way. For now, yes, AI art is steadily curbstomping human art. Admit it. It's decent now. And it's getting a lot better. Every industry is fucked, so let's hope we can find a way for humans to have some modicum of comfortable worth in the new techno-slave era.
3 Years of Service
At the moment full AI is not competitive versus DAZ or illustrators. But many artists are using AI to improve their creations. We already see rendering made in DAZ then modified with AI to "improve" their realism. The results can vary and the judgment depends on personal taste, but it's happening. Probably in the next future developers will have a more deep connection between DAZ and AI. Integration or maybe a plugin or something similar. Producing a coherent series of scenes only with AI, with strict detail customisation, seems really difficult and far from being possible.
2 Years of Service
honestly there is place for ai, science and computation of harder numbers in comparison to current pc, personaly i dont think they should be used for graphical designs and if must only for assistance tools, to clear up slight mistake or to mark it for artist/ designer. In end the people with biggest wallets will decide how industry will addapt ai and to what degree, there is reason why Nvidia for example stopped making good gpu after 1080ti, that thing to this day can run modern games with few hickups at peaks on higher settings meanwhile 4090 and soon 50's series which rely on ai struggle on even lower end settings due to how reliant on that ai they are.
2 Years of Service
Altera, for me, the AI is not better, I prefer the game design that is published more here
D
We should not support AI tbh
11 Months of Service
Looking at AI artwork from a couple of years later, it seems easy to see that AI artwork is still incredibly easy to spot. Yes, there's also AI Slop, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The vast majority of AI artwork has the same tones, shading, color temps, lighting style, and it all looks like it was drawn in the same art house. You really have to fight the prompts to escape it, truth be told.
The funny part is, this will only get reinforced. AI trains itself off of what's out there and what it gets fed. The more AI art that gets pumped out, the more it becomes fodder for the LLMs, and the more homogenized the art pool becomes.
The vast majority of AI artwork has the same tones, shading, color temps, lighting style, and it all looks like it was drawn in the same art house. You really have to fight the prompts to escape it, truth be told.
The funny part is, this will only get reinforced. AI trains itself off of what's out there and what it gets fed. The more AI art that gets pumped out, the more it becomes fodder for the LLMs, and the more homogenized the art pool becomes.
2 Years of Service
dying by itself unless intevined by outside force, people running ai machines and checking them if they are doing proper shit.
11 Months of Service
This happens now with most generative AI models - they specifically have devs who have to gatekeep the things, if only to prevent things like
You must be registered to see links
. Agreed, though it's going to take awhile before it gets elevated to that level, TBT. That may be my bias talking, though.
I know CG art had the same hurdle of acceptance - "Oh, you didn't use a paintbrush or a pencil, so it's not really art!"
Photography had the same acceptance issues back in my grandfather's day, now that I think about it.
All said and done though? The ease with which AI can be cranked out will likely make it a bit harder to be accepted, I think.
I mean, with CG you need a decent computer, competent software, and quite a bit of skill in avoiding the viewer getting an ick-inducing case of
You must be registered to see links
. With photography, you needed a decent camera, some darkroom skills, and a lot of compositional skill (plus exceptional timing in some cases.) With sculpture/painting/drawing, you need the right tools, materials, a shitload of skill, and more than just a bit of luck.
2 Months of Service
I've been trying to do AI art for a few years now, and I think you also need to learn a lot about each model to be able to create what you want, and that not everybody can create high quality art with it. Most of what you mentioned about CG also applies here, especially with the censoring of non-local models.
Of course, most people cannot distinguish high quality art from AI slop, but that is also true for all other art forms.
Similar threads
Legal Notice
This site provides links to other sites/services, and does not store any files