AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?

[Lyndis]

I went looking to see if a thread on this topic already existed. Please direct me appropriately if so.
AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?​

Everyone and their mama has heard about AI art generators and the various arguments and opinions folks have about them by now. Stable Diffusion, Dream, Craiyon, even applications like Lensa that use AI to augment existing images and countless others are arriving by the day. They've quickly become a mainstay in almost every artistic community I'm apart of or adjacent to. I've heard people argue both in favor and against their use, especially when it comes to collecting a profit off what people generate, and now I want to hear it from ya'll.

Which side of the spectrum do you fall? Is AI a legitimate tool for people to use in artistic "creation", or do you feel more strongly about how it borrows from the artists these various engines "sample"? Do you think it's ethical for people to make money using these programs? Do you feel similar about AI text generators? Would you play a game, read a book, or consume other media that was made entirely from AI? Do you feel that artists should disclose whether or not AI was used in their works?

Why or why not?

[FlashD]

As everything AI art generation has it's own pros and cons. On the pro side you have easy access to art, that you can use for yourself. This spans from big images, that you can then print and have on the wall in your room, down to a simple avatar on a forum. This way even non artists have easy access to good art. On the con side however, this means less revenue for artists, since nobody will ask them for commissions anymore. Then there are people claiming AI art as their own pretending to be artists themselves, further damaging the artists. With better trained AI, it's possible to generate images made by famous artists and even copy their style creating new images. Because of that there is plenty of opportunities for counterfeit and fake art. So at the very end, whether AI art generation is beneficial or problematic is simply a matter of how it's used.

[Lyndis]

I'd argue that AI used for this purpose was unethical in its inception. After all, in order for the program to even exist as it does right now, it had to be fed and trained on millions and millions of artistic images that were acquired without the consent or awareness of their original artists. So even if people were to use such a program to create and print art for their homes and other, non-commercial use, are you not still profiting off the stolen skill and labor of those unnamed artists?


Is there a way that such services could be provided to people without abusing others in that way? The only solution I can think of is for those folks who desire to create art, learn how to create art. Everyone has 'easy access to art' in that way because literally everyone can learn how to make art themselves. It just takes time, dedication and discipline. Which I don't think folks are willing or wanting to commit to.

[FlashD]

So even if people were to use such a program to create and print art for their homes and other, non-commercial use, are you not still profiting off the stolen skill and labor of those unnamed artists?

If that is true, then you can pretty much erase our whole history. Knowledge has been passed from artist to artist forever, so pretty much everyone have "stolen" some of their mentor's knowledge and at each step they add something new. This is true also for AI. Even if you were to make an exact copy or somebody's work using AI, that "copy" wouldn't be exactly the same.

Is there a way that such services could be provided to people without abusing others in that way? The only solution I can think of is for those folks who desire to create art, learn how to create art. Everyone has 'easy access to art' in that way because literally everyone can learn how to make art themselves.

Art is a subjective term. It basically means "pleasant to the eye". There are plenty of artists that create art by literally throwing paint on a paint net and call it "art". Critiques call those works "art", if the signature on them is a well known artist, otherwise is just classified as garbage. Art schools teach you how to create art using techniques and styles developed by well known artists. Saying that AI art is abusive art is a bit excessive, because not even artists are creating anything new, but only using what they have learned from others, while masking it by combining different styles to make one they call their own. The real issue is the easy way for everybody to get something done for free hurting artists' revenue, since they already struggle selling their works.

[PictureGuy]

Wasn't this question at the heart of the anime Carole and Tuesday?

Back onto the subject, I guess AI is useful for those who want to create, but don't want to take the time to think or develop their talents. Can AI match the imagination or dreams of the human mind? I think not.

[Clayton_n]

I for one enjoy the art of out robot overlords.

[Swatchel]

Do you believe the use of AI in art generation poses a threat to traditional artists, impacting their revenue and authenticity, or do you see it as a valuable tool providing easy access to art for non-artists?

[PictureGuy]

Do you believe the use of AI in art generation poses a threat to traditional artists, impacting their revenue and authenticity, or do you see it as a valuable tool providing easy access to art for non-artists?

I prefer the skill and training that goes with the human artist. AI has no soul.

[Nanobyte]

As everything AI art generation has it's own pros and cons. On the pro side you have easy access to art, that you can use for yourself. This spans from big images, that you can then print and have on the wall in your room, down to a simple avatar on a forum. This way even non artists have easy access to good art. On the con side however, this means less revenue for artists, since nobody will ask them for commissions anymore. Then there are people claiming AI art as their own pretending to be artists themselves, further damaging the artists. With better trained AI, it's possible to generate images made by famous artists and even copy their style creating new images. Because of that there is plenty of opportunities for counterfeit and fake art. So at the very end, whether AI art generation is beneficial or problematic is simply a matter of how it's used.

Pretty much this, but with the added caveat that most AI art generated is very low quality, and tends to clutter boorus/social media and drown out real, good art. AI "art" isn't actual art, it's an algorithm making a Frankenstein of what it thinks the prompt wants it to create, and makes its best guess. Usually there's a lot of artifacting, details are missing and proportions can be very off. Most of it looks very samey as well, with little variation and poses look awkward, not deliberate. It'll be many years before AI art is good enough to match the quality you get from real art, and even then it'll never be able to create "original" works the way real artists can.



It's like they say, a picture says more than 1000 words. And you can't really prompt a picture with 1000 tags, so artists will be superior for a long time to come, maybe forever.

[[UglyTed]]

Kills any originality in it. Everything looks the same. Feel like it could be a parallel to everything else going on. The internet used to be like the wild west. Loads of creativity and no restrictions. Now it's a corporate carbon copy wasteland void of anything that's had blood, sweat, and tears put into it. Just ads and regurgitation. Same for the platforms, music, and now art.

[Nanobyte]

Kills any originality in it. Everything looks the same. Feel like it could be a parallel to everything else going on. The internet used to be like the wild west. Loads of creativity and no restrictions. Now it's a corporate carbon copy wasteland void of anything that's had blood, sweat, and tears put into it. Just ads and regurgitation. Same for the platforms, music, and now art.

At least we continue the cycle of cringe. Furries will always have a special place in my heart for being unapologetically weird, even if some of them are sexual deviants. The sonic OC fandom, the bronies, the Undertale fandom, Five nights at freddies, etc. It feels like we will keep getting weird teens that have their own brand of cringe to weird up the internet for us and keep it interesting. One day I hope to see a museum when I'm in my 80s or something, with every era of cringe neatly placed into a timeline for us to admire. The corpos might take our originality, but they will never take our cringe.

[Clayton_n]

Kills any originality in it. Everything looks the same. Feel like it could be a parallel to everything else going on. The internet used to be like the wild west. Loads of creativity and no restrictions. Now it's a corporate carbon copy wasteland void of anything that's had blood, sweat, and tears put into it. Just ads and regurgitation. Same for the platforms, music, and now art.

Do you have any examples?

[[UglyTed]]

Do you have any examples?

[Clayton_n]