Tweet
I get bamboozeled in to watching random Youtube shit and even worse the comment section related to what is now being referred as AI art. It's just rage bait. I know it, but I have my weaknesses.
Far as I'm concerned AI art goes back about 50 years. It's a scale that starts from procedural generation following strict rules and ends somewhere around sentience, before the inevitable robot revolution and the following apocalypse. For me it's all just algo's doing stuff. AI art is defined in the social media by choosing a random point in that scale, when online portals gained some popularity. These portals use procedural generation with algo's that have been trained by brute force methods from a semirandom dataset of images collected by spiders. The last bit represents the current AI art defining very crude machine learning component. The tech/ware for even that bit is at it's infancy.
From that training part comes the all "AI art is using stolen art". I would care, if that wasn't how literally every artist learns their craft. Doesn't matter, if it's through subconscious osmosis or deliberate practice involving training muscle memory and analyzing work of other artists. That's just how it works. AI training tools use miniscule parts of existing art works in their final output. The parts they use from human artists have the running theme that the artists have no claim for those individual parts, because by the same logic they themselves "stole" those parts from other artists. That is fine. That's how shit evolves. There's no point in reinventing the wheel over and over. Some cunt did an ok job on that front in the past and now it's time build on top of that.
With still visual images (sometimes referred to as art) around 99,9-100% out of isolated elements the artist has no claim for and usually they can't own the IP/patent/copyright for that accidental 0,1% when that rarely occurs. That's just because people have been doing this shit all over the world for a few thousand years of recorded history. Being hella smart rarely beats north of billions of manhours, that the human kind has wasted in being mildly entertained by still images. Where IP comes from is combining stuff from past generations in a mildly novel way. For that we have perfectly functional laws for plagiarism (in most places) that already cover AI art.
The basic argument is that poor artists lose their jobs when machines can do it in a fraction of the of time and cost. Popular AI art portals are capable of creating stuff today that's roughly equivalent to the impact of clip art 30 years ago. They're missing the tools for customization that is needed for commercial work. Because the basic functionality is more an ad for the portal, they produce relatively similar safe outputs. If you lose your job to that, maybe look in to learning another craft and in reality in the west your skillset was made worthless by globalization about a decade ago. Get good or get fucked.
For the most part the biggest "honest" outrage comes from hobbyists and social media artists that make clickbait entertainment for a living. None of this is going to touch investment art or "fine art". On the commercial art side we're mostly seeing some amazing intellectual dishonesty or appropriate silence. With commercial art the first priority is getting the job done in time and within budget. How you get there doesn't really matter. With concept art photo bashing is an industry standard. With animation or VFX you're already fucking with algo's. Algo's already do majority of the grunt work in everything related 3d animation or modelling. That's because people suck at mapping and reproducing physical phenomenon's. Things like reflective light gets insane to map with multiple objects, materials, light sources and movement. Same thing with gravity and force. You can kinda ballpark it so it looks about right, but computers are so much faster and more accurate. And we don't talk about filling frames between key frames.
There's some honest gripe in the field of 2d illustration (excluding concept art). The answer to that is to learn how to use AI tools. That field has already had to adapt to digital art and even before that there were new innovations that made older medias mostly useless. Once upon a time there was stuff like doing ad illustrations with gouache and sign painting was an actual profession. I have no idea when calligraphy became an almost useless skill outside of sign painting or the exact time line for the decline of either. Shit's gone now though. With illustrations there was a time period when alcohol markers were relevant enough that gouache disappeared. Thing with alcohol based dyes is that they degrade so fast that they are only useful for work that gets reproduced. Anyways digital art replaced all of them. Mostly as the blueprint for something that gets reproduced.
Anyways after fucking around with offline AI tools for a week I'll summarize what it can do now at some point.
Far as I'm concerned AI art goes back about 50 years. It's a scale that starts from procedural generation following strict rules and ends somewhere around sentience, before the inevitable robot revolution and the following apocalypse. For me it's all just algo's doing stuff. AI art is defined in the social media by choosing a random point in that scale, when online portals gained some popularity. These portals use procedural generation with algo's that have been trained by brute force methods from a semirandom dataset of images collected by spiders. The last bit represents the current AI art defining very crude machine learning component. The tech/ware for even that bit is at it's infancy.
From that training part comes the all "AI art is using stolen art". I would care, if that wasn't how literally every artist learns their craft. Doesn't matter, if it's through subconscious osmosis or deliberate practice involving training muscle memory and analyzing work of other artists. That's just how it works. AI training tools use miniscule parts of existing art works in their final output. The parts they use from human artists have the running theme that the artists have no claim for those individual parts, because by the same logic they themselves "stole" those parts from other artists. That is fine. That's how shit evolves. There's no point in reinventing the wheel over and over. Some cunt did an ok job on that front in the past and now it's time build on top of that.
With still visual images (sometimes referred to as art) around 99,9-100% out of isolated elements the artist has no claim for and usually they can't own the IP/patent/copyright for that accidental 0,1% when that rarely occurs. That's just because people have been doing this shit all over the world for a few thousand years of recorded history. Being hella smart rarely beats north of billions of manhours, that the human kind has wasted in being mildly entertained by still images. Where IP comes from is combining stuff from past generations in a mildly novel way. For that we have perfectly functional laws for plagiarism (in most places) that already cover AI art.
The basic argument is that poor artists lose their jobs when machines can do it in a fraction of the of time and cost. Popular AI art portals are capable of creating stuff today that's roughly equivalent to the impact of clip art 30 years ago. They're missing the tools for customization that is needed for commercial work. Because the basic functionality is more an ad for the portal, they produce relatively similar safe outputs. If you lose your job to that, maybe look in to learning another craft and in reality in the west your skillset was made worthless by globalization about a decade ago. Get good or get fucked.
For the most part the biggest "honest" outrage comes from hobbyists and social media artists that make clickbait entertainment for a living. None of this is going to touch investment art or "fine art". On the commercial art side we're mostly seeing some amazing intellectual dishonesty or appropriate silence. With commercial art the first priority is getting the job done in time and within budget. How you get there doesn't really matter. With concept art photo bashing is an industry standard. With animation or VFX you're already fucking with algo's. Algo's already do majority of the grunt work in everything related 3d animation or modelling. That's because people suck at mapping and reproducing physical phenomenon's. Things like reflective light gets insane to map with multiple objects, materials, light sources and movement. Same thing with gravity and force. You can kinda ballpark it so it looks about right, but computers are so much faster and more accurate. And we don't talk about filling frames between key frames.
There's some honest gripe in the field of 2d illustration (excluding concept art). The answer to that is to learn how to use AI tools. That field has already had to adapt to digital art and even before that there were new innovations that made older medias mostly useless. Once upon a time there was stuff like doing ad illustrations with gouache and sign painting was an actual profession. I have no idea when calligraphy became an almost useless skill outside of sign painting or the exact time line for the decline of either. Shit's gone now though. With illustrations there was a time period when alcohol markers were relevant enough that gouache disappeared. Thing with alcohol based dyes is that they degrade so fast that they are only useful for work that gets reproduced. Anyways digital art replaced all of them. Mostly as the blueprint for something that gets reproduced.
Anyways after fucking around with offline AI tools for a week I'll summarize what it can do now at some point.
Comment