AI-generated art

[Foxridley]

Probably inevitable that a thread about AI-generated “art” would pop up on a forum for an art site.
The other night I saw someone was posting massive amounts of AI-generated pictures, and I’ve found a few galleries full of nothing but AI art.
While it can be fun to look at the surreal images DALL-E creates, the ability of computers to create these images is improving. Some stuff from Midjourney looks pretty close to the real deal: something you might actually see in an expensive commission.
So, this brings up a number of questions. Should there be restrictions on mass-posting AI-generated art, considering that it can be churned out much faster than human-made art? Someone can easily flood the site with dozens of these pictures in a short time. I don’t mean banning it, but spamming the site with large amounts of it could be problematic.
The other question is: To what degree might it replace human-made art and commissions? If folks can get a computer to mass produce pictures for cheap or free, no talent or effort required, many will see little reason to buy commissions, draw things themselves, or learn to draw. Especially considering a lot of people already seem to think artists should draw for free.

 

[DrinkingVesper]

It probably wont. Human art has real value.

 

[DrinkingVesper]

Don't be afraid AI is your friend.

 

[quoting_mungo]

There’s good and bad ways to use these image generators. I don’t believe (in an ideological sense) they belong on a site like FA unless part of a transformative work (see below for an example), though it seems like the rule prohibiting submissions created with character creator/doll maker type tools is no longer in place, which would otherwise be what I’d lean on rules-wise. It’s definitely something FA will need to address within the next couple of years at the latest.

Broadly, I do believe there’s an ethical issue with training these tools on art made by still living artists, particularly when the tools understand and accept prompts like “in Artist McArtist style.” I haven’t seen any such tools that allow artists to opt in rather than opt out (if they even have that). If you ask Dall-E to pretend to be Monet or Picasso that’s a very different thing from asking it to do work imitating an artist that’s currently alive and trying to make a living, possibly from their art.

For an example of good use, Ursula Vernon did a lovely comic where she incorporated the results from a generator with additional human editing. This is a cool, ethical way to use these tools.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467984046059835399

 

[TyraWadman]

Probably inevitable that a thread about AI-generated “art” would pop up on a forum for an art site.
The other night I saw someone was posting massive amounts of AI-generated pictures, and I’ve found a few galleries full of nothing but AI art.
While it can be fun to look at the surreal images DALL-E creates, the ability of computers to create these images is improving. Some stuff from Midjourney looks pretty close to the real deal: something you might actually see in an expensive commission.
So, this brings up a number of questions. Should there be restrictions on mass-posting AI-generated art, considering that it can be churned out much faster than human-made art? Someone can easily flood the site with dozens of these pictures in a short time. I don’t mean banning it, but spamming the site with large amounts of it could be problematic.
The other question is: To what degree might it replace human-made art and commissions? If folks can get a computer to mass produce pictures for cheap or free, no talent or effort required, many will see little reason to buy commissions, draw things themselves, or learn to draw. Especially considering a lot of people already seem to think artists should draw for free.

Ai is a bit tricky- depending which ai software they use, it's against the rules to post it on FA because it creates images derived from other existing artwork.

All in all, I've seen the 'capabilities' of this software and it's a joke. Everything I have searched so far looks like art a beginner might make stepping into photoshop for the first time, or doesn't even look solid (blobs of color with no definition/don't complete the image). You have to remember they're only showing you what they want you to see... Not the garbage I'm getting XD

 

[quoting_mungo]

Ai is a bit tricky- depending which ai software they use, it's against the rules to post it on FA because it creates images derived from other existing artwork.

The problem there, sadly, is that it’s not very enforceably against the rules. I hate to say this, but it’s been a problem with the “no third party reports” policy for a long time. It should still matter that the rules say not to, but too much of the time that’s not how users actually think.

I would love to see blatant violations and lack of credit get addressed more firmly, and I think with tools like this becoming more available it’s going to be needed even more than it already is.

 

[Foxridley]

There’s good and bad ways to use these image generators. I don’t believe (in an ideological sense) they belong on a site like FA unless part of a transformative work (see below for an example), though it seems like the rule prohibiting submissions created with character creator/doll maker type tools is no longer in place, which would otherwise be what I’d lean on rules-wise. It’s definitely something FA will need to address within the next couple of years at the latest.

Broadly, I do believe there’s an ethical issue with training these tools on art made by still living artists, particularly when the tools understand and accept prompts like “in Artist McArtist style.” I haven’t seen any such tools that allow artists to opt in rather than opt out (if they even have that). If you ask Dall-E to pretend to be Monet or Picasso that’s a very different thing from asking it to do work imitating an artist that’s currently alive and trying to make a living, possibly from their art.

For an example of good use, Ursula Vernon did a lovely comic where she incorporated the results from a generator with additional human editing. This is a cool, ethical way to use these tools.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467984046059835399

Ai is a bit tricky- depending which ai software they use, it's against the rules to post it on FA because it creates images derived from other existing artwork.

All in all, I've seen the 'capabilities' of this software and it's a joke. Everything I have searched so far looks like art a beginner might make stepping into photoshop for the first time, or doesn't even look solid (blobs of color with no definition/don't complete the image). You have to remember they're only showing you what they want you to see... Not the garbage I'm getting XD

The problem there, sadly, is that it’s not very enforceably against the rules. I hate to say this, but it’s been a problem with the “no third party reports” policy for a long time. It should still matter that the rules say not to, but too much of the time that’s not how users actually think.

I would love to see blatant violations and lack of credit get addressed more firmly, and I think with tools like this becoming more available it’s going to be needed even more than it already is.

As far as it being derived from existing art, it depends on how heavily referenced it is, since human artists also learn from watching others and use references. Heck, I use references since my proportions often end up out of wack.

As far as FA’s rules on third party reporting goes, you can still report stuff like screenshots of TV shows. Arguably, stuff simply pumped out by an AI lacks artistic merit. Altogether, any restrictions on AI art would involve changing FA’s policies.

 

[TyraWadman]

As far as it being derived from existing art, it depends on how heavily referenced it is, since human artists also learn from watching others and use references. Heck, I use references since my proportions often end up out of wack.

Referencing and literally copying and pasting are very different. XD

As far as FA’s rules on third party reporting goes, you can still report stuff like screenshots of TV shows. Arguably, stuff simply pumped out by an AI lacks artistic merit. Altogether, any restrictions on AI art would involve changing FA’s policies.

There are AI's like artbreeder that explicitly state it creates/blends existing artworks. If you don't credit the original artists/don't have their permission, it's against the rules.

2.5 Citing Sources​

Content that was not made explicitly by you that is used as part of your submission (such as free-to-use lineart, backgrounds, or royalty-free content) must cite its original source and be used with permission from the copyright holder. All permissions and copyright holders must be cited in the content's description. If an artist or character owner wished to be kept anonymous they must be credited as anonymous.

2.6 Content Not Made By You / For You​

Content that was neither made by nor for the uploader is not allowed, unless part of a derivative work (See Section 2.5 for more information) or a group that has permission from the copyright holder. All permissions and copyright holders must be cited in the content's description. A group is defined as a user account dedicated to showcasing content of a chosen theme with others who share similar interests for the purpose of building a community and giving artists exposure.

 

[Foxridley]

Referencing and literally copying and pasting are very different. XD



There are AI's like artbreeder that explicitly state it creates/blends existing artworks. If you don't credit the original artists/don't have their permission, it's against the rules.

Yeah, that’s what I wasn’t sure about: where the “derived” part of AI art falls on a scale of “referencing” to “straight-up copying.”

 

[Mambi]

Probably inevitable that a thread about AI-generated “art” would pop up on a forum for an art site.
The other night I saw someone was posting massive amounts of AI-generated pictures, and I’ve found a few galleries full of nothing but AI art.
While it can be fun to look at the surreal images DALL-E creates, the ability of computers to create these images is improving. Some stuff from Midjourney looks pretty close to the real deal: something you might actually see in an expensive commission.
So, this brings up a number of questions. Should there be restrictions on mass-posting AI-generated art, considering that it can be churned out much faster than human-made art? Someone can easily flood the site with dozens of these pictures in a short time. I don’t mean banning it, but spamming the site with large amounts of it could be problematic.
The other question is: To what degree might it replace human-made art and commissions? If folks can get a computer to mass produce pictures for cheap or free, no talent or effort required, many will see little reason to buy commissions, draw things themselves, or learn to draw. Especially considering a lot of people already seem to think artists should draw for free.

A human can create. An AI can only re-create. We imagine, it recombines. We have no limits, while it has only the limits given to it by us.

 

[LameFox]

I think going forward generated images probably should be in their own category or require mandatory tagging for filter purposes, or else the sheer volume could make looking for anything else a colossal pain in the ass.

Assuming art sites even want to host AI generated images. I guess it's worth considering that as the tools become more accessible, that volume they could potentially output may be a cost the hosts don't see any value in bearing.

 

[Foxridley]

I think going forward generated images probably should be in their own category or require mandatory tagging for filter purposes, or else the sheer volume could make looking for anything else a colossal pain in the ass.

Assuming art sites even want to host AI generated images. I guess it's worth considering that as the tools become more accessible, that volume they could potentially output may be a cost the hosts don't see any value in bearing.

That's another issue, given how easy it is to mass produce, that we could see more AI-generated art than real art. If that were to happen, it could drive users away. That sort of thing might create an incentive for site operators to restrict it.

 

[quoting_mungo]

As far as it being derived from existing art, it depends on how heavily referenced it is, since human artists also learn from watching others and use references. Heck, I use references since my proportions often end up out of wack.

I feel like using generators like these without further (manual) editing is more akin to slapping a Photoshop filter onto something than using references or learning from other artists’ methods. I’m willing to treat training the raw software on exclusively your own work an acceptable special case, with the caveat that few if any artists have the raw numbers in their portfolio to make such use very feasible. At that point the method becomes “part of” the piece, though.

As far as FA’s rules on third party reporting goes, you can still report stuff like screenshots of TV shows. Arguably, stuff simply pumped out by an AI lacks artistic merit. Altogether, any restrictions on AI art would involve changing FA’s policies.

Screenshots of TV shows can’t be third party reported if used in e.g. a background, mind (so if they’re derivative). Like, draw your character into a scene from a cartoon and now the copyright holder is the only one who gets to complain. The artistic merit rules are also extremely narrow in application.

I don’t often say anything this direct in criticism of FA’s rules and how they’re enforced, because I feel spelling out the rules’ shortcomings comes too close to giving people who want to push the line a playbook, but I think it’s important in this context. Even now I’m keeping some specific things back because I don’t want to be writing “how to get away with ignoring the rules 101.”

But yes, absolutely FA needs to add rules (or at least language) to address this, within the next couple years. Waiting for it to become a problem is asking for drama, IMO.

That's another issue, given how easy it is to mass produce, that we could see more AI-generated art than real art. If that were to happen, it could drive users away. That sort of thing might create an incentive for site operators to restrict it.

Might or might not - ultimately it's a value judgment that site owners need to make. Like... sales reminders annoy the hell out of a lot of people and rules keep circling back to being pretty permissive where those go, on FA. I would love to see rules of art sites, in general, stipulate that differences between submissions need to have artistic merit (possibly with specific exceptions carved out for "here's a single version with/without speech bubbles" as speech bubbles can block out a lot of a piece). Like... if the changes made, in isolation, would violate the artistic merit rules, then they're not significant enough to qualify as a non-duplicate submission.

Because I'm hella salty about artists slapping a teensy tiny "reminder" text in one corner, too small to be visible in a front page thumbnail, and that being sufficient to call it a unique submission.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Double posting because it’s been long enough since my last post that an edit risks missing some people who might be interested and I came across this tweet that seems highly relevant to the discussion:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564651635602853889

There’s some context I’d like to have as to this person’s reasoning and reasons for submitting the piece. Is this similar to the thing some people did to embarrass peer reviewed journals (submit garbage papers and compile statistics for how they were received, basically, IIRC)? Is it one of those “what is art?” things like putting a toilet in an art gallery? Is it something like the dumbass classmate I had in sequential arts school who justified using a pirated version of Photoshop with the fact that her copy was in German and so a pain in the ass to use? (Curating AI-generated images to pick out the gems is something I can absolutely see being both tedious and time-consuming, but is that really an equivalent sort of effort as what an artist might put into a digital painting that could win the same award?)

 

[Foxridley]

Double posting because it’s been long enough since my last post that an edit risks missing some people who might be interested and I came across this tweet that seems highly relevant to the discussion:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564651635602853889

There’s some context I’d like to have as to this person’s reasoning and reasons for submitting the piece. Is this similar to the thing some people did to embarrass peer reviewed journals (submit garbage papers and compile statistics for how they were received, basically, IIRC)? Is it one of those “what is art?” things like putting a toilet in an art gallery? Is it something like the dumbass classmate I had in sequential arts school who justified using a pirated version of Photoshop with the fact that her copy was in German and so a pain in the ass to use? (Curating AI-generated images to pick out the gems is something I can absolutely see being both tedious and time-consuming, but is that really an equivalent sort of effort as what an artist might put into a digital painting that could win the same award?)

On the last bit, I think combing through AI-generated images is more akin to fine-tuning a Google search. In both cases you’re giving a prompt to a machine. Picking the gems, so to speak, could just as well be done going through other people’s galleries. So it isn’t really comparable to a genuine creative process.

 

[quoting_mungo]

On the last bit, I think combing through AI-generated images is more akin to fine-tuning a Google search. In both cases you’re giving a prompt to a machine. Picking the gems, so to speak, could just as well be done going through other people’s galleries. So it isn’t really comparable to a genuine creative process.

Oh, absolutely, that’s closer to my thinking. I’m more wondering if the people who think that the person’s actions weren’t wrong are using a logic of “well it was hard work and therefore the results are my work.” And that reminded me of my long ago classmate who felt her pirated Photoshop was justified by the German UI being a pain in the ass.

 

[Foxridley]

Oh, absolutely, that’s closer to my thinking. I’m more wondering if the people who think that the person’s actions weren’t wrong are using a logic of “well it was hard work and therefore the results are my work.” And that reminded me of my long ago classmate who felt her pirated Photoshop was justified by the German UI being a pain in the ass.

Presenting AI art, like above, in that sense also seems to be an extension of “if it’s online, it’s free for me to take and use for my benefit.”
I’m kinda reminded of the kid who stole one of my YouTube videos with the excuse that my stuff had more views.

 

[Ziggy Schlacht]

A human can create. An AI can only re-create. We imagine, it recombines. We have no limits, while it has only the limits given to it by us.

That's a philosophical argument at best. No art is created in a vacuum - you are a product of your influences, and are just combining those to create something "new." If you don't believe me - go draw a species never seen before. Well, odds are you'll take say the muzzle of a wolf with cats ears and insect... crap, you're just combining elements. How is that different than feeding the AI a prompt and it combines things instead?

 

[Fallowfox]

Ai is a bit tricky- depending which ai software they use, it's against the rules to post it on FA because it creates images derived from other existing artwork.

All in all, I've seen the 'capabilities' of this software and it's a joke. Everything I have searched so far looks like art a beginner might make stepping into photoshop for the first time, or doesn't even look solid (blobs of color with no definition/don't complete the image). You have to remember they're only showing you what they want you to see... Not the garbage I'm getting XD

It's worth considering that the art that human intelligences post is curated; they also only tend to share their best content.
All art produced by human intelligences is effectively re-mixed input, mostly from existing photography and artworks, so it can become difficult to tell how the human approach to producing art is fundamentally any more creative than an artificial intelligence's.

This is art produced by an artificial intelligence 'midjourney'.

I think this field is going to progress rapidly and that we probably will not need human intelligences to produce art for business purposes, at least not directly.
I think people will still make art, but for their own amusement, rather than because it will be a limited commodity.

I will say that I feel AI isn't capable of putting real artists out of business because it's so difficult for even an advanced program to create something that matches the specific image and idea a human being has in their mind.

Additionally, you will likely notice that even the most impressive computer-generated arts have recognizable flaws that make it stand out as something made by a program. I've seen that these generators struggle with anatomy like hands, feet, and faces.

I'm convinced that we will be able to distinguish something made by a person from something made by a computer.

It is possible to initiate artificial intelligences with existing images as input, in addition to natural language prompts.
You can also re-cycle the output back into the intelligence multiple times.
So you can request an AI to produce several options, and then proceed with an iterative process to arrive at a well finished piece.

I think a problem we're going to encounter is that the visions humans have for what they want may themselves become viewed as inadequate and vague instructions, and that interpreting what will appeal to humans may itself become automated.

The problem there, sadly, is that it’s not very enforceably against the rules. I hate to say this, but it’s been a problem with the “no third party reports” policy for a long time. It should still matter that the rules say not to, but too much of the time that’s not how users actually think.

I would love to see blatant violations and lack of credit get addressed more firmly, and I think with tools like this becoming more available it’s going to be needed even more than it already is.

Unless the output from an AI is automatically recorded or marked in some way, how are staff expected to distinguish what is produced by an artificial and a human intelligence anyway?

 

[Mambi]

That's a philosophical argument at best. No art is created in a vacuum - you are a product of your influences, and are just combining those to create something "new." If you don't believe me - go draw a species never seen before. Well, odds are you'll take say the muzzle of a wolf with cats ears and insect... crap, you're just combining elements. How is that different than feeding the AI a prompt and it combines things instead?

Hmmm, a very good good point, but there is one difference I suppose. I'm being guided by my feelings as I create something, while the computer is just pattern-matching to an algorithm. Whether it looks right, makes me feel happy, conveys a personality, whatever it is, I'm being guided by my emotional biases and preferences.

The computer would not, it would be just combining elements and asking "is this art now?" basically. Since a blank page or a Monet would make the computer "feel" the same, it would have to judge it's art creation process totally objectively and factually. There would be no soul to it because the creator had none. IT doesn't even appreciate it's art...it literally can't...so how am I supposed to?

I mean, can you imagine if someone tried to tell say Quentin Tarantino that the computer can make movie "art" as well as he could through an algorithm? After being done laughting at the person saying that foolishness, he'd smash it to pieces with a sledgehammer out of pure principle!

 

[quoting_mungo]

Valid concern that was raised on this topic elsewhere: If this is treated as a legitimate and unproblematic way to create “real art,” it’s liable to further devalue artists’ work.

Furry fandom already has a lot of artists undercharging; what happens if generated art adds further pressure to lower prices?

Unless the output from an AI is automatically recorded or marked in some way, how are staff expected to distinguish what is produced by an artificial and a human intelligence anyway?

While you have a point, I don’t believe that catching 100% of violations is always necessary for a policy to be good. Most people who build their gallery on generated art will sooner or later slip up, and can be dealt with when they do.

 

[Firuthi Dragovic]

The other question is: To what degree might it replace human-made art and commissions? If folks can get a computer to mass produce pictures for cheap or free, no talent or effort required, many will see little reason to buy commissions, draw things themselves, or learn to draw. Especially considering a lot of people already seem to think artists should draw for free.

You're more likely to see more complex commissions or more unusual species if the computer thing takes off.

The images needed to initiate an AI have to come from somewhere, after all.

I think this field is going to progress rapidly and that we probably will not need human intelligences to produce art for business purposes, at least not directly.
I think people will still make art, but for their own amusement, rather than because it will be a limited commodity.

Ohohoho, you are underestimating human pickiness and possessiveness if you think this will replace art for business purposes, ever.

 

[Fallowfox]

Valid concern that was raised on this topic elsewhere: If this is treated as a legitimate and unproblematic way to create “real art,” it’s liable to further devalue artists’ work.

Furry fandom already has a lot of artists undercharging; what happens if generated art adds further pressure to lower prices?


While you have a point, I don’t believe that catching 100% of violations is always necessary for a policy to be good. Most people who build their gallery on generated art will sooner or later slip up, and can be dealt with when they do.

Is photography a legitimate way to produce portraits? Is photography an art form when contrasted with portraiture painting?
Did the advent and democratisation of photography undermine the career of portrait artists? It probably did. Does that mean the distribution of photographs should have been more tightly restricted?

 

[RTDragon]

I've been seeing quite a few of them show up on FA which i'm surprised but i don't really like seeing it cause it makes it look like it's not genuine without the artist own work and style into it. Though seeing those AI generated furry artworks says quite a lot though.

 

[Ziggy Schlacht]

Hmmm, a very good good point, but there is one difference I suppose. I'm being guided by my feelings as I create something, while the computer is just pattern-matching to an algorithm. Whether it looks right, makes me feel happy, conveys a personality, whatever it is, I'm being guided by my emotional biases and preferences.

The computer would not, it would be just combining elements and asking "is this art now?" basically. Since a blank page or a Monet would make the computer "feel" the same, it would have to judge it's art creation process totally objectively and factually. There would be no soul to it because the creator had none. IT doesn't even appreciate it's art...it literally can't...so how am I supposed to?

I mean, can you imagine if someone tried to tell say Quentin Tarantino that the computer can make movie "art" as well as he could through an algorithm? After being done laughting at the person saying that foolishness, he'd smash it to pieces with a sledgehammer out of pure principle!

Question, if I sent you art you liked and didn't tell you it was AI created, you'd wonder who the artist was. If I then told you it was AI, would you cease to like it? Would you cease to feel anything? Would it cease to be art?

Granted, this debate is somewhat moot, because "what is art" and "what should be on FA" are two different questions. I don't like the idea of FA permitting AI generated art, because it's a lot easier to produce than well... anything done by a person. And in many cases, exceeds what a lot of people can do. So by making quality pictures easy to generate, you cheapen the skill of artists. But that doesn't mean it's not art.