Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
IS AI GENERATED ART ETHICAL?
Posts
iddalai
View playlists
CloseAI generated stuff is shit and the beginning of the end for future genuine creative endeavours.
In addition to that, AI itself is a lie, a fabrication, there is no true AI.
Computers cannot create, they can mix and match and even randomisers are done using a set of predetermined parameters. Computers and programs cannot do anything they weren't "told" to do.
It will be the death of art, which has been on its last legs for some years now. Next to no one knows how to draw or paint or sculpt or anything any more. Today, everything is digital. The lack of skill promoted by an all-digital platform had already taken its toll on art as a whole.
But introducing AI programs into the equation will kill whatever was left of art. No one will bother learning how to do anything physical with their hands because they have a program to do it for them. No one will need to think or decide anything because a program is already ““thinking”” and deciding for them.
Images generated by this program are not art. Art has to be made with purpose and meaning, why an artist painted this character in this position? Why did the artist pick those specific colors? The “whys” are the reason it's art. If you remove that human component then what remains is just an image, not art.
It's all rather disgusting. Not a world I'd want to live in.
Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
But now it's all soulless. When a person plays an instrument there will be a cadence, a certain rhythm different for each person, you may play some notes deeper and have a slight delay in some parts of the composition, you may play certain melodies faster and other slower.
Because you're human!
Making music all digital removes the humanity from it, removes those slight imperfections and nuances which actually made the music perfect and good.
Digital music becomes machine-like, cold, sterile. And once again we have the lack of skill at play. So much easier for anyone to “create” music without having any prior knowledge of music or even knowing how to play any instruments.
If everyone is special, then no one is special. That's where we're going, a world where everyone can use a tool to make anything without any skill and where no one will learn any skills and hence those skills will die since there will be no one to pass them on to the next generation.
A world where no one will have standards due to a lack of different human creations to use as comparison.
A world where everything will have lower quality and everyone will also be lower quality themselves.
Old school artists were made extinct when the all-digital platform arrived, and now the all-digital artists will be made extinct by these programs. Soon there will be no one who can be called an artist. The concept will disappear.
In addition to that, AI itself is a lie, a fabrication, there is no true AI.
Computers cannot create, they can mix and match and even randomisers are done using a set of predetermined parameters. Computers and programs cannot do anything they weren't "told" to do.
It will be the death of art, which has been on its last legs for some years now. Next to no one knows how to draw or paint or sculpt or anything any more. Today, everything is digital. The lack of skill promoted by an all-digital platform had already taken its toll on art as a whole.
But introducing AI programs into the equation will kill whatever was left of art. No one will bother learning how to do anything physical with their hands because they have a program to do it for them. No one will need to think or decide anything because a program is already ““thinking”” and deciding for them.
Images generated by this program are not art. Art has to be made with purpose and meaning, why an artist painted this character in this position? Why did the artist pick those specific colors? The “whys” are the reason it's art. If you remove that human component then what remains is just an image, not art.
It's all rather disgusting. Not a world I'd want to live in.
Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
But now it's all soulless. When a person plays an instrument there will be a cadence, a certain rhythm different for each person, you may play some notes deeper and have a slight delay in some parts of the composition, you may play certain melodies faster and other slower.
Because you're human!
Making music all digital removes the humanity from it, removes those slight imperfections and nuances which actually made the music perfect and good.
Digital music becomes machine-like, cold, sterile. And once again we have the lack of skill at play. So much easier for anyone to “create” music without having any prior knowledge of music or even knowing how to play any instruments.
If everyone is special, then no one is special. That's where we're going, a world where everyone can use a tool to make anything without any skill and where no one will learn any skills and hence those skills will die since there will be no one to pass them on to the next generation.
A world where no one will have standards due to a lack of different human creations to use as comparison.
A world where everything will have lower quality and everyone will also be lower quality themselves.
Old school artists were made extinct when the all-digital platform arrived, and now the all-digital artists will be made extinct by these programs. Soon there will be no one who can be called an artist. The concept will disappear.
There's no lack of skill promoted by digital art platforms. You still have to make the decisions, to learn and refine your abilities and understand the methods to create work through it. Nor did it make traditional art "extinct", That's a ridiculous claim to make, and frankly an insulting one- if someone choose to use digital art tools they are no less of an artist. They share the same craft in a different workstation/medium, they still practise it.
But you hit on something that's been in my head about AI art recently. The lack of learning, or experimenting, or craft is an issue. It brought to mind that famous quote from Jurassic Park:
Not to say it's a 1:1 there, but. It's something that feels like a deliberate ignorance, self-deprivation from learning or understanding, and the end creation is hollow because there's no human emotion in it. You can almost tell when you're looking at something an AI made because of that. Then when you deprive yourself of it, you deprive others from feeling that humanity in art, that soul that makes you want to create for yourself. It becomes nothing more than a cheap ready-meal you throw in the microwave to satiate an urge. It becomes meaningless.
I dunno. I find it hard to elaborate my thoughts on it, but I don't like it. I'm not worried as an artist because I make art for myself in the end. A machine could never replace my own "soul".
But you hit on something that's been in my head about AI art recently. The lack of learning, or experimenting, or craft is an issue. It brought to mind that famous quote from Jurassic Park:
Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...
Not to say it's a 1:1 there, but. It's something that feels like a deliberate ignorance, self-deprivation from learning or understanding, and the end creation is hollow because there's no human emotion in it. You can almost tell when you're looking at something an AI made because of that. Then when you deprive yourself of it, you deprive others from feeling that humanity in art, that soul that makes you want to create for yourself. It becomes nothing more than a cheap ready-meal you throw in the microwave to satiate an urge. It becomes meaningless.
I dunno. I find it hard to elaborate my thoughts on it, but I don't like it. I'm not worried as an artist because I make art for myself in the end. A machine could never replace my own "soul".
author=Roden
There's no lack of skill promoted by digital art platforms. You still have to make the decisions, to learn and refine your abilities and understand the methods to create work through it.
Please, don't take this the wrong way.
The ease of using a digital medium (filters, algorithms, unlimited undos, etc) does cause a lack of skill. Not having to worry about making mistakes means that more mistakes are made since they can be easily solved. That's skill loss right there.
Digital lowers the entry level so that basic necessary foundation skills aren't necessary, which harms the long term skill, learning and development.
You cannot compare the skill of an artist from a century ago with the skill of a modern digital artist. I know it hurts the ego, but digital artists have less skill. That doesn't mean digital artists are bad artists, only that they have less skill when compared with old school non-digital artists. I don't mean to offend, I'm simply stating facts.
author=Roden
Nor did it make traditional art "extinct", That's a ridiculous claim to make, and frankly an insulting one- if someone choose to use digital art tools they are no less of an artist. They share the same craft in a different workstation/medium, they still practise it.
Nothing ridiculous about that claim. Nearly all art made today is digital. It's rare to see any art made in a traditional physical medium. Movies, cartoons, images, drawings, painting and even videogame art. All of it is made digital today.
Nothing insulting about what I said, one should be aware of its own limitations. Digital art medium is popular because it's easier to produce than traditional art. The ease of use is indeed a sign that less skill is involved.
Again, I mean no offence, and you shouldn't feel offended by this. I can appreciate that you, as a digital artists, don't like to hear this, but it's the truth.
I would like to reinforce that I don't mean to say that digital artists aren't artists or that they are bad artists, but it's undeniable that digital art requires less skill than traditional physical art.
author=Roden
Not to say it's a 1:1 there, but. It's something that feels like a deliberate ignorance, self-deprivation from learning or understanding, and the end creation is hollow because there's no human emotion in it. You can almost tell when you're looking at something an AI made because of that. Then when you deprive yourself of it, you deprive others from feeling that humanity in art, that soul that makes you want to create for yourself. It becomes nothing more than a cheap ready-meal you throw in the microwave to satiate an urge. It becomes meaningless.
I completely agree.
Well, it will certainly be an interesting question to pose to the artists I know. I don't intend to argue it any further, though, you're free to believe what you want on that.
@iddalai No, tbh the idea digital art requires less skill/talent is ridiculous. it's a different skillset not a lesser one. citation: I do both physical and digital art. (also I find physical easier a lot of the time lmao)
I don't know if nearly all art made today is digital but, if it is, assuming it's because it's easier is a bit silly. Art is more accessible as a program for many people, as technology is everywhere, and needing to collect and pay for art supplies before now precluded more lower class ppl from doing art. more people in the lowest classes can make art now as opposed to a century ago.
Sounds more like an ego problem on your part assuming your worldview must be the only explanation for a phenomena. No offense, of course!
(also not like, an accusation, but the assumption that art is degrading and made by ppl who are less worthy/talented is an idea that makes you vulnerable to other strains of thought, fascist in nature, about degradation of society)
I don't know if nearly all art made today is digital but, if it is, assuming it's because it's easier is a bit silly. Art is more accessible as a program for many people, as technology is everywhere, and needing to collect and pay for art supplies before now precluded more lower class ppl from doing art. more people in the lowest classes can make art now as opposed to a century ago.
Sounds more like an ego problem on your part assuming your worldview must be the only explanation for a phenomena. No offense, of course!
(also not like, an accusation, but the assumption that art is degrading and made by ppl who are less worthy/talented is an idea that makes you vulnerable to other strains of thought, fascist in nature, about degradation of society)
Darken
3952
might as well be arguing with weird social media accounts with roman statue avatars reminiscing about the good old days and desperately clinging on to traditon above all else.
author=iddalai
AI generated stuff is shit and the beginning of the end for future genuine creative endeavours.
In addition to that, AI itself is a lie, a fabrication, there is no true AI.
Computers cannot create, they can mix and match and even randomisers are done using a set of predetermined parameters. Computers and programs cannot do anything they weren't "told" to do.
It will be the death of art, which has been on its last legs for some years now. Next to no one knows how to draw or paint or sculpt or anything any more. Today, everything is digital. The lack of skill promoted by an all-digital platform had already taken its toll on art as a whole.
But introducing AI programs into the equation will kill whatever was left of art. No one will bother learning how to do anything physical with their hands because they have a program to do it for them. No one will need to think or decide anything because a program is already ““thinking”” and deciding for them.
Images generated by this program are not art. Art has to be made with purpose and meaning, why an artist painted this character in this position? Why did the artist pick those specific colors? The “whys” are the reason it's art. If you remove that human component then what remains is just an image, not art.
It's all rather disgusting. Not a world I'd want to live in.
Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
But now it's all soulless. When a person plays an instrument there will be a cadence, a certain rhythm different for each person, you may play some notes deeper and have a slight delay in some parts of the composition, you may play certain melodies faster and other slower.
Because you're human!
Making music all digital removes the humanity from it, removes those slight imperfections and nuances which actually made the music perfect and good.
Digital music becomes machine-like, cold, sterile. And once again we have the lack of skill at play. So much easier for anyone to “create” music without having any prior knowledge of music or even knowing how to play any instruments.
If everyone is special, then no one is special. That's where we're going, a world where everyone can use a tool to make anything without any skill and where no one will learn any skills and hence those skills will die since there will be no one to pass them on to the next generation.
A world where no one will have standards due to a lack of different human creations to use as comparison.
A world where everything will have lower quality and everyone will also be lower quality themselves.
Old school artists were made extinct when the all-digital platform arrived, and now the all-digital artists will be made extinct by these programs. Soon there will be no one who can be called an artist. The concept will disappear.
Just abit of fun. Runs away.
Shinan
4314
If we're going to go down the what is good art or what is art and/or if AI can generate it... Then...
I think that AI can be... art. But it is all down to curation. An algorithm can spit out millions of random images but the art comes down to curating the pieces and putting them into a context. Like in many ways it's like traditional pop art (funny how pop art can be called traditional), taking something known and remixing it, giving it new context.
Art, after all, is about giving a statement. So making the explicitly soulless (Algorithmically generated art) is its own statement. And through context it then becomes a thought-provoking thing. (like I can see a thing where someone would use generated art and their own art and then also their own art made to mimic the generated art and make a sort of game about who can spot the fake ones. Context makes the individual pieces meaningless but as they play off each other they create a whole new piece of artwork. I'm sure all of this has been done already)
And as a random aside I also think this is funny:
The dates of when music was ruined moves around a lot depending on one's age. I've heard it was ruined in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s (the 80s ruined a lot of things), 90 and 00s.
And it's usually for the exact same reasons!
Oh and on the ethicalness of it all. The issue always comes down to what was used to teach the algorithms. I'm sure an artist or an artist collective could get together and feed their art into an algorithm and see what it spits out and there wouldn't be any ethical considerations at all. They willingly put that stuff into the machine and thus they also own what it spits out, no ambiguity there.
The reason AI art is so shat upon is that a bunch of people's work was used for it without their permission.
Like I said earlier it says something about the (lack of) power of artists that they just scraped all that stuff and put it into the world and no one gave a shit. Just imagine what the record companies would have done if they had just put the last 100 years of pop music into the algorithm and started generating a bunch of random new pop tunes for people to listen to. (This is something I have no doubt these algorithms could do just as easily as it generates text and images. But I have a feeling that they for some inexplicable (:P) reason just chose to not teach their music bots by throwing in all of Queen's albums in there, instead used... more "ethically sourced" music)
I think that AI can be... art. But it is all down to curation. An algorithm can spit out millions of random images but the art comes down to curating the pieces and putting them into a context. Like in many ways it's like traditional pop art (funny how pop art can be called traditional), taking something known and remixing it, giving it new context.
Art, after all, is about giving a statement. So making the explicitly soulless (Algorithmically generated art) is its own statement. And through context it then becomes a thought-provoking thing. (like I can see a thing where someone would use generated art and their own art and then also their own art made to mimic the generated art and make a sort of game about who can spot the fake ones. Context makes the individual pieces meaningless but as they play off each other they create a whole new piece of artwork. I'm sure all of this has been done already)
And as a random aside I also think this is funny:
Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
The dates of when music was ruined moves around a lot depending on one's age. I've heard it was ruined in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s (the 80s ruined a lot of things), 90 and 00s.
And it's usually for the exact same reasons!
Oh and on the ethicalness of it all. The issue always comes down to what was used to teach the algorithms. I'm sure an artist or an artist collective could get together and feed their art into an algorithm and see what it spits out and there wouldn't be any ethical considerations at all. They willingly put that stuff into the machine and thus they also own what it spits out, no ambiguity there.
The reason AI art is so shat upon is that a bunch of people's work was used for it without their permission.
Like I said earlier it says something about the (lack of) power of artists that they just scraped all that stuff and put it into the world and no one gave a shit. Just imagine what the record companies would have done if they had just put the last 100 years of pop music into the algorithm and started generating a bunch of random new pop tunes for people to listen to. (This is something I have no doubt these algorithms could do just as easily as it generates text and images. But I have a feeling that they for some inexplicable (:P) reason just chose to not teach their music bots by throwing in all of Queen's albums in there, instead used... more "ethically sourced" music)
is the purpose of art to let humans express and explore themselves and others? or is it to give humans a stream of mind-numbing content to consume?
Assuming that ai art starts being made ethically I don't have any problem considering it art. It's like looking at a cloud and projecting your own thoughts onto it. Obviously, a cloud wasn't made to be looked at and interpreted but presumably ai art is.
I don't begrudge people saying it's not art though bc I don't want to just project onto clouds every time I look at art - it's nice for there to be some intention or expression there. I'm going to prefer a human being behind the wheel 9.9 times out of 10.
I don't begrudge people saying it's not art though bc I don't want to just project onto clouds every time I look at art - it's nice for there to be some intention or expression there. I'm going to prefer a human being behind the wheel 9.9 times out of 10.
I wouldn't have a problem saying AI Art was art either, providing the AI was actually self aware and we determined that such things are living creatures and therefore had that same "soul" in them to create. I'd be very interested at that point, like looking at art an alien made.
author=Roden
Well, it will certainly be an interesting question to pose to the artists I know.
I'm sure they won't like to hear it either :P
author=Roden
I don't intend to argue it any further, though, you're free to believe what you want on that.
Likewise. But no hard feelings.
author=Gourd_Clae
@iddalai No, tbh the idea digital art requires less skill/talent is ridiculous. it's a different skillset not a lesser one. citation: I do both physical and digital art. (also I find physical easier a lot of the time lmao)
Not ridiculous at all. Skill and talent are different things though. I never mentioned talent.
Skills are something you can develop, Talent you either have or you don't.
author=Gourd_Clae
I don't know if nearly all art made today is digital but, if it is, assuming it's because it's easier is a bit silly. Art is more accessible as a program for many people, as technology is everywhere, and needing to collect and pay for art supplies before now precluded more lower class ppl from doing art. more people in the lowest classes can make art now as opposed to a century ago.
Am I the one assuming? There are several factors, but being easier to produce is indeed one of them. You are even justifying my point. Reduced costs and high accessibility. That translates as: easier.
author=Gourd_Clae
Sounds more like an ego problem on your part assuming your worldview must be the only explanation for a phenomena. No offense, of course!
Thus speaks the offended ego...
Why is it that my worldview is problematic and not yours, pray?
author=Gourd_Clae
(also not like, an accusation, but the assumption that art is degrading and made by ppl who are less worthy/talented is an idea that makes you vulnerable to other strains of thought, fascist in nature, about degradation of society)
Wow. I never mentioned anything about anyone being "less worthy"! Those are your words, not mine. I also never mentioned "talent".
Did you read what I wrote? Or were you too busy trying to find politics where there were none? How did you extrapolate fascism from what I said? I think you're the one who need to get their worldview checked if that's what you got from my post. No offense, of course! :P
author=Darken
might as well be arguing with weird social media accounts with roman statue avatars reminiscing about the good old days and desperately clinging on to traditon above all else.
Kindly fuck off Darken. Go spread your vitriol somewhere else.
author=Benos
Just abit of fun. Runs away.
Sorry, I didn't get it.
author=Shinan
And as a random aside I also think this is funny:Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
The dates of when music was ruined moves around a lot depending on one's age. I've heard it was ruined in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s (the 80s ruined a lot of things), 90 and 00s.
And it's usually for the exact same reasons!
Indeed it's amusing!
Honestly, I don't even listen to much music from the 90's, but I believe there was still good music back then, and then it became rarer and rarer. I also picked that date because soon afterwards was when digital music became much more prevalent.
Also, just because the same idea is thrown around but the dates changes, doesn't mean someone isn't right :P
author=kentona
is the purpose of art to let humans express and explore themselves and others? or is it to give humans a stream of mind-numbing content to consume?
Art was born of religion (unfortunate as that may be). And for many years, religion was still the purpose of art, but once religion shifted in power, art gained a new meaning. But it still needs a purpose, the purpose of the artist who is creating the art.
AI "art", however, I'd say is just another means of producing mind-numbing content.
If a person did not purposefully create art, then it is not art.
I'm sure they won't like to hear it either :P
In fact they were happy to, and the overwhelming majority disagreed. They reassured me. Only I was vulnerable to self-doubt in that regard, due to my own experiences. But they knew what I knew, that there is no difference. The toolset one uses to create does not dictate the quality of the creation.
Not ridiculous at all. Skill and talent are different things though. I never mentioned talent.
Skills are something you can develop, Talent you either have or you don't.
As Bob Ross once said: "Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do."
Art was born of religion
Pray tell, what religion did the ancient cave painters follow? What religion compelled our earliest ancestors to draw their hunt onto the wall of their homes?
Nonsense. Art is born of the soul, not of doctrine.
Honestly, I don't even listen to much music from the 90's, but I believe there was still good music back then, and then it became rarer and rarer. I also picked that date because soon afterwards was when digital music became much more prevalent.
Your rose glasses are showing. Over time we only remember, or indeed, history only preserves the greatest of the great in art. It's ignorance to assume that any one period of time produced an undeniably lower class of creation, because you only remember the pinnacle of what time has passed.
I collect movies, so I know this. People say "movies were better back in the 80s/90s/70s/etc, but every era had the same amount of low quality drivel being shovelled into it. The difference being that as time passes we don't remember it. The same will be said of today's era once it reaches a proper age.
author=iddalaiI was using them as synonyms since they often come together. I said my lived experience contradicts your model of the world and you skipped over it. How do you reckon with that?author=Gourd_ClaeNot ridiculous at all. Skill and talent are different things though. I never mentioned talent.
@iddalai No, tbh the idea digital art requires less skill/talent is ridiculous. it's a different skillset not a lesser one. citation: I do both physical and digital art. (also I find physical easier a lot of the time lmao)
Skills are something you can develop, Talent you either have or you don't.
author=iddalaiIf easier, to you, means two parts of "more people are able to get their hands on art supplies" and "the act of art itself is inherently easier to do" than yeah i see how you might think it's easier. i would agree with you on the first part but again disagree on the second part bc it's been my experience otherwise.author=Gourd_ClaeAm I the one assuming? There are several factors, but being easier to produce is indeed one of them. You are even justifying my point. Reduced costs and high accessibility. That translates as: easier.
I don't know if nearly all art made today is digital but, if it is, assuming it's because it's easier is a bit silly. Art is more accessible as a program for many people, as technology is everywhere, and needing to collect and pay for art supplies before now precluded more lower class ppl from doing art. more people in the lowest classes can make art now as opposed to a century ago.
Here's a video about fascisms veneration of older art also with some cool modern art (that maybe isn't art?) thrown in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
if you watch that iddalai, you might understand better my intentions with the note on fascism.
Going to leave the rest bc you're kind of starting to talk like sephiroth as you get further in the post. None of my post was meant to be aggressively inflammatory! I was being a little cheeky with the "no offense" part obviously, but i was just mimicking the (slightly nasty) tone in your other post where you go on about knowing what you say will bruise egos. Just figured you could take it in good fun, as you were dishing out hard truths yourself, sorry!
On another note about ai art being art, I feel like it could be good for generating meaningless patterns for the purpose of making you feel something. Kind of like the clouds i was talking about earlier but you're meant to feel it more than think about it. We've been talking a lot about egos, and an art piece that just exists without meaning is kind of intriguing. People do things like that, but they're people with biases and meanings that seep in. An ai might have similar problems based on its training but might get closer. Think of those gifs with the triangle you're supposed to breath with guide meditation? It could be like a way of turning your brain off and disconnecting from your ego. That's arguable more of a tool than art, but we use art as tools all the time anyway. (which i guess is my larger point, and why i think ai art should be considered art -- art is a lot of things and comes from a lot of places arguably not all of them human even if they require a connection to humanity)
oops another edit bc i keep having thoughts. has anybody seen the beetle that does art bc im not going to be the one to tell her that her art is less valid bc she's not human!! /hj
cw beetles doing art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv3c1d8xOhA
or consider that video games werent considered art forever. the level of changing and interaction kind of precluded them and they were rarely beautiful. the idea that art is something that ONLY requires a human with a soul is kind of modern isnt it? it was pretty strictly about a static image made in a certain way, or a song. now a public performance can be art, defacing anothers art might be art, maybe beetles can do art, maybe nature can do art and maybe ai can too? im not a historian though this is just my own preconception of how ppl thought of art lmao
Irog
4858
author=Strak
Ooh let's please not open that can of worms. This could very easily turn into a very toxic post if we go down that rabbit hole.
I believe that we, at RMN, can have a sound discussion including this point.
author=kentona
is the purpose of art to let humans express and explore themselves and others? or is it to give humans a stream of mind-numbing content to consume?
Humans are great at creating wonderful masterpieces, while AI is great at cheaply producing at lot of good enough outputs.
author=iddalai
Old school artists were made extinct when the all-digital platform arrived, and now the all-digital artists will be made extinct by these programs. Soon there will be no one who can be called an artist. The concept will disappear.
The sad reality is: if creating art cease to be viable, fewer peoples will develop good art skills.
Going back to whether AI art is ethical or not, I'd say it absolutley depends on how it is applied. One application where I personally don't see any issues is using it for inspiration, as in, have it come up with some sort of scene based on prompts and then make your own work based off of that. Kind of like a "concept artist" for the people that can't afford to find a proper concept artist. While there absolutely some unethical usages of AI art, I do think we should also try and focus on the positives.
Personally, I don't think AI art will ever replace the actual artist, there's just a special level of nuance that can't be replicated with AI, and not to mention that an actual artist can perfectly fine tune a piece of art is necesarry.
Touching ever so slightly on the digital vs physical art thing, I see them as both having the same issues. I don't really think that digital art makes art more accessible to the lower class, as getting any really good tablet for drawing costs you thousands of dollars. The same way a less wealthy individual can start out in art with cheap art supplies, a digital artist can start out with a cheap tablet and then upgrade if necessary. Now, I am absolutely no expert on what is more costly in the long run, drawing tablets for drawing digitally, or getting art supplies for drawing physicially, but I think both forms of art have their strengths and weaknesses and places in the world. Some things are easier with physical art, some things are easier with digital art, it's all a matter of what it's used for.
Personally, I don't think AI art will ever replace the actual artist, there's just a special level of nuance that can't be replicated with AI, and not to mention that an actual artist can perfectly fine tune a piece of art is necesarry.
Touching ever so slightly on the digital vs physical art thing, I see them as both having the same issues. I don't really think that digital art makes art more accessible to the lower class, as getting any really good tablet for drawing costs you thousands of dollars. The same way a less wealthy individual can start out in art with cheap art supplies, a digital artist can start out with a cheap tablet and then upgrade if necessary. Now, I am absolutely no expert on what is more costly in the long run, drawing tablets for drawing digitally, or getting art supplies for drawing physicially, but I think both forms of art have their strengths and weaknesses and places in the world. Some things are easier with physical art, some things are easier with digital art, it's all a matter of what it's used for.
@ozzy That's a good consideration! In my experience as somebody with less money, I got a single tablet and a computer as a gift over the course of like 20 years and that was enough. Before that I practiced with mouse. I imagine getting new supplies all the time would be impossible in comparison, but I don't know everybody's situation!
@Irog I'd discuss UBI but I don't fully understand why it was brought up ;w; I like the idea in general, but Due to the nature of capitalism I fear that UBI would get predated on by landlords or utility companies but Idk
@Irog I'd discuss UBI but I don't fully understand why it was brought up ;w; I like the idea in general, but Due to the nature of capitalism I fear that UBI would get predated on by landlords or utility companies but Idk
No, AI ""art"" isn't ethical.
I expected them to agree with you, but didn't expect them to enjoy the question.
I still disagree.
I like Bob Ross as much as the next guy, but he essentially stole the method from his master and then pretended to have developed it himself and made a living of it.
Not really someone I would quote due to his ambiguous moral and ethics.
As for talent, iddalai once said: "You either have talent or you don't."
You may hone your skills and they may allow you to be as good as the most talented, but you may never have talent you weren't born with. Talent is an unfair advantage that life has given to some people. Life is rarely fair and hard work is no substitute for raw natural talent.
Some people simply have a natural inclination to doing some things, and if they practice at those things they will get even better, in comparison someone without talent will have a harder time competing.
Did you study art and the history of art? Because I did.
I know it's not enjoyable to listen, but art was born of religion. Emphasis on "was". Times have changed and art changed with them. Religion is no longer as prevalent and therefore art now exists in function of the artist.
The ancient cave painters worshipped Gaia (or women in general for having the gift of giving life), represented as small statuettes of fertile women. This was before they stopped worshipping women and started worshipping men through the use of mehnirs (AKA giant erect penises).
Wall painting also represented religious rituals in addition to big hunts (which can be argued to be part of the rituals).
Later on, when religion took over the world, there were only 2 types of art, the large majority was depicting bible scenes (heaven, hell, etc) to impress the faithfuls and the rest was depictions of rather rich people.
Greece worshipped the male body, so what do we get? A ton of male nude statues (their depiction of the female body was rare) and get this, most of the depicted males were religious figures (Zeus, Hercules, etc) or rich folk.
And so on.
Until we get to Dada which said "fuck this, I'm drawing a moustache in Mona Lisa!" and hence proclaimed art to be dead so that it could be reborn through the artist, after being released from the shackles of religion.
This isn't really what I argued about, but I'll indulge.
It's ignorance to believe that quality didn't degraded.
You're assuming I haven't done my homework, simply because you didn't do yours.
If you believe that modern movies are as good as movies from decades ago, then you are deceiving yourself and there's no reason for me to keep this up since we will be running in circles.
I won't deny that there was crap being produced in every time period. That hardly contradicts what I said. There is always crap being produced! But the ratio of crap to quality has changed, as did the quality standards, all of which for the worse. Acting, camera angles, cinematography, soundtrack, plot, writing. A random bad movie from the 80's has better chances of being better quality than a random average movie from today.
And by comparison one of Black and White's best can kick the ass of most 80's movies (or any other non-B&W era).
This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, but they are just that.
Congratulations, now I feel like the old man yelling at a cloud.
I see, but I don't agree they're synonyms.
I didn't skip over it. I replied with another question: Why is it that my worldview is problematic and not yours, pray?
I think it's fair, since you disagree with my worldview, that I ask why is my worldview the issue here and not your worldview.
But I'll tell you this: what am I to do when my life experience also contradicts your model of the world? Living in different locations can be enough to provide completely different outlooks.
More or less. Easier partly because of what you mention here, but also in the skill required. Which is what you disagree with.
Well, I know I ruffled some (all?) feathers, but I hope I wasn't as offensive as you are being to me.
Dude, you implied I was a fascist! How could I not get inflamed!? And now you're saying I'm talking like Sephiroth? WTF
There was no nasty tone in what I wrote in my first post. I'm calling BS on that. If there's any nasty tone at all, it's after people stopped being polite.
Good fun? After what you implied? I can't take nothing in good fun after you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote.
Forgive me if I don't quite feel like watching that video since it came from a person who implied I was a fascist and still maintains the same position.
I feel like this should be against forum rules or something.
I'm not too sure about that, Irog :(
I agree. Many other skills have been lost due to similar happenings (such as mechanising a process and removing the human component).
But even if you're only using it for inspiration, that same concept art or inspiration should come from a person, an artist and not a program. It's still unethical.
We're tiptoeing around the issue here, there's only one reason for this to exist, which is to help people who don't have any art aptitude or the will to try it/spend time learning it, to be able to produce images.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but then I look around and many jobs and people have already been replaced by such programs.
Consider this, you believe that artists cannot be replaced (which I agree), because you were born in an era before AI art. But what will the following generations feel when asked the same question, since they were born in a world where AI art is common/the norm?
I'm inclined to believe that they will deem artists unnecessary.
That's a really good point!
I'd like to add that anyone with a computer can create art using free programs. It won't be as high quality when using a mouse, sure, but they can. But the same can be said for someone with a piece of paper and a pencil (although I think that can be higher quality when compared with a mouse, unless you're making pixel art).
I also agree that both forms of art have theirs strengths and weaknesses, but I still maintain that physical takes more skill.
author=Roden
In fact they were happy to, and the overwhelming majority disagreed. They reassured me. Only I was vulnerable to self-doubt in that regard, due to my own experiences. But they knew what I knew, that there is no difference. The toolset one uses to create does not dictate the quality of the creation.
I expected them to agree with you, but didn't expect them to enjoy the question.
I still disagree.
author=Roden
As Bob Ross once said: "Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do."
I like Bob Ross as much as the next guy, but he essentially stole the method from his master and then pretended to have developed it himself and made a living of it.
Not really someone I would quote due to his ambiguous moral and ethics.
As for talent, iddalai once said: "You either have talent or you don't."
You may hone your skills and they may allow you to be as good as the most talented, but you may never have talent you weren't born with. Talent is an unfair advantage that life has given to some people. Life is rarely fair and hard work is no substitute for raw natural talent.
Some people simply have a natural inclination to doing some things, and if they practice at those things they will get even better, in comparison someone without talent will have a harder time competing.
author=Roden
Pray tell, what religion did the ancient cave painters follow? What religion compelled our earliest ancestors to draw their hunt onto the wall of their homes?
Nonsense. Art is born of the soul, not of doctrine.
Did you study art and the history of art? Because I did.
I know it's not enjoyable to listen, but art was born of religion. Emphasis on "was". Times have changed and art changed with them. Religion is no longer as prevalent and therefore art now exists in function of the artist.
The ancient cave painters worshipped Gaia (or women in general for having the gift of giving life), represented as small statuettes of fertile women. This was before they stopped worshipping women and started worshipping men through the use of mehnirs (AKA giant erect penises).
Wall painting also represented religious rituals in addition to big hunts (which can be argued to be part of the rituals).
Later on, when religion took over the world, there were only 2 types of art, the large majority was depicting bible scenes (heaven, hell, etc) to impress the faithfuls and the rest was depictions of rather rich people.
Greece worshipped the male body, so what do we get? A ton of male nude statues (their depiction of the female body was rare) and get this, most of the depicted males were religious figures (Zeus, Hercules, etc) or rich folk.
And so on.
Until we get to Dada which said "fuck this, I'm drawing a moustache in Mona Lisa!" and hence proclaimed art to be dead so that it could be reborn through the artist, after being released from the shackles of religion.
author=Roden
Your rose glasses are showing. Over time we only remember, or indeed, history only preserves the greatest of the great in art. It's ignorance to assume that any one period of time produced an undeniably lower class of creation, because you only remember the pinnacle of what time has passed.
I collect movies, so I know this. People say "movies were better back in the 80s/90s/70s/etc, but every era had the same amount of low quality drivel being shovelled into it. The difference being that as time passes we don't remember it. The same will be said of today's era once it reaches a proper age.
This isn't really what I argued about, but I'll indulge.
It's ignorance to believe that quality didn't degraded.
You're assuming I haven't done my homework, simply because you didn't do yours.
If you believe that modern movies are as good as movies from decades ago, then you are deceiving yourself and there's no reason for me to keep this up since we will be running in circles.
I won't deny that there was crap being produced in every time period. That hardly contradicts what I said. There is always crap being produced! But the ratio of crap to quality has changed, as did the quality standards, all of which for the worse. Acting, camera angles, cinematography, soundtrack, plot, writing. A random bad movie from the 80's has better chances of being better quality than a random average movie from today.
And by comparison one of Black and White's best can kick the ass of most 80's movies (or any other non-B&W era).
This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, but they are just that.
Congratulations, now I feel like the old man yelling at a cloud.
author=Gourd_Clae
I was using them as synonyms since they often come together. I said my lived experience contradicts your model of the world and you skipped over it. How do you reckon with that?
I see, but I don't agree they're synonyms.
I didn't skip over it. I replied with another question: Why is it that my worldview is problematic and not yours, pray?
I think it's fair, since you disagree with my worldview, that I ask why is my worldview the issue here and not your worldview.
But I'll tell you this: what am I to do when my life experience also contradicts your model of the world? Living in different locations can be enough to provide completely different outlooks.
author=Gourd_Clae
If easier, to you, means two parts of "more people are able to get their hands on art supplies" and "the act of art itself is inherently easier to do" than yeah i see how you might think it's easier. i would agree with you on the first part but again disagree on the second part bc it's been my experience otherwise.
More or less. Easier partly because of what you mention here, but also in the skill required. Which is what you disagree with.
author=Gourd_Clae
Here's a video about fascisms veneration of older art also with some cool modern art (that maybe isn't art?) thrown in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
if you watch that iddalai, you might understand better my intentions with the note on fascism.
Going to leave the rest bc you're kind of starting to talk like sephiroth as you get further in the post. None of my post was meant to be aggressively inflammatory! I was being a little cheeky with the "no offense" part obviously, but i was just mimicking the (slightly nasty) tone in your other post where you go on about knowing what you say will bruise egos. Just figured you could take it in good fun, as you were dishing out hard truths yourself, sorry!
Well, I know I ruffled some (all?) feathers, but I hope I wasn't as offensive as you are being to me.
Dude, you implied I was a fascist! How could I not get inflamed!? And now you're saying I'm talking like Sephiroth? WTF
There was no nasty tone in what I wrote in my first post. I'm calling BS on that. If there's any nasty tone at all, it's after people stopped being polite.
Good fun? After what you implied? I can't take nothing in good fun after you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote.
Forgive me if I don't quite feel like watching that video since it came from a person who implied I was a fascist and still maintains the same position.
I feel like this should be against forum rules or something.
author=Irogauthor=StrakI believe that we, at RMN, can have a sound discussion including this point.
Ooh let's please not open that can of worms. This could very easily turn into a very toxic post if we go down that rabbit hole.
I'm not too sure about that, Irog :(
author=Irogauthor=iddalaiThe sad reality is: if creating art cease to be viable, fewer peoples will develop good art skills.
Old school artists were made extinct when the all-digital platform arrived, and now the all-digital artists will be made extinct by these programs. Soon there will be no one who can be called an artist. The concept will disappear.
I agree. Many other skills have been lost due to similar happenings (such as mechanising a process and removing the human component).
author=OzzyTheOne
Going back to whether AI art is ethical or not, I'd say it absolutley depends on how it is applied. One application where I personally don't see any issues is using it for inspiration, as in, have it come up with some sort of scene based on prompts and then make your own work based off of that. Kind of like a "concept artist" for the people that can't afford to find a proper concept artist. While there absolutely some unethical usages of AI art, I do think we should also try and focus on the positives.
But even if you're only using it for inspiration, that same concept art or inspiration should come from a person, an artist and not a program. It's still unethical.
We're tiptoeing around the issue here, there's only one reason for this to exist, which is to help people who don't have any art aptitude or the will to try it/spend time learning it, to be able to produce images.
author=OzzyTheOne
Personally, I don't think AI art will ever replace the actual artist, there's just a special level of nuance that can't be replicated with AI, and not to mention that an actual artist can perfectly fine tune a piece of art is necesarry.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but then I look around and many jobs and people have already been replaced by such programs.
Consider this, you believe that artists cannot be replaced (which I agree), because you were born in an era before AI art. But what will the following generations feel when asked the same question, since they were born in a world where AI art is common/the norm?
I'm inclined to believe that they will deem artists unnecessary.
author=OzzyTheOne
Touching ever so slightly on the digital vs physical art thing, I see them as both having the same issues. I don't really think that digital art makes art more accessible to the lower class, as getting any really good tablet for drawing costs you thousands of dollars. The same way a less wealthy individual can start out in art with cheap art supplies, a digital artist can start out with a cheap tablet and then upgrade if necessary. Now, I am absolutely no expert on what is more costly in the long run, drawing tablets for drawing digitally, or getting art supplies for drawing physicially, but I think both forms of art have their strengths and weaknesses and places in the world. Some things are easier with physical art, some things are easier with digital art, it's all a matter of what it's used for.
That's a really good point!
I'd like to add that anyone with a computer can create art using free programs. It won't be as high quality when using a mouse, sure, but they can. But the same can be said for someone with a piece of paper and a pencil (although I think that can be higher quality when compared with a mouse, unless you're making pixel art).
I also agree that both forms of art have theirs strengths and weaknesses, but I still maintain that physical takes more skill.
@iddalai I'm just going to drop the convo and say sorry! My intention was not to call you a fascist. My thought process was that if I held a view shared by bad people, I'd want somebody to point it out so that I could think on it more closely. That might have been silly since I don't know you very well, so you didn't know my intentions. In the future, if you want to avoid upsetting people, talking about "not wanting to harm ppls egos" comes across as arrogant while denigrating a whole form of art you don't seem to have experience with comes across as close-minded and mean-spirited. I'm sure you're a lovely person who is neither of those things, and you didn't deserve to be made to feel bad either way.
