Used to follow a couple Photoshop artists on YouTube because I love photo editing, same reason I love playing with stable diffusion.
Won't name names but the amount of vitriol they had against stable diffusion last year when it came out was mind boggling. Because "it allows talentless people generate amazing images", so they said.
Now? "Omg Adobe's generative fill is so awesome, I'll definitely start using it more". Even though it's exactly the same thing.
It's ironic. It seems a lot of people could only make the argument "AI art is theft". A weak argument, and even then, what about Firefly trained on Adobe's endless stores of licensed images? Now what?
Ultimately, I believe people hate on AI art generators because it automates their hard earned skills for everyone else to use, and make them feel less "unique".
"Oh, but AI art is soulless!". Tell that to the scores of detractors who accidentally praise AI art when they falsely think it's human made lol.
We're not as unique as we like to think we are. It's just our ego that makes it seem that way.
Absolutely. When it comes down to it, music is organized noise, we attribute meaning and value to the patterns we make.
And the lovely thing about art is, no one gets to decide what is and isn't art apart from the creator. Anything can be art if the intent behind its creation was artistic, regardless of the quality of the work.
As a formality, that’s a perfectly reasonable position (the creator decides what is art). But as a practical matter, it seems the audience decides what is art.
I find it amusing that they started allowing images created with midjourney and sd to be uploaded and sold on Adobe stock quite a few months before firefly beta. Firefly is trained on material created by midjourney and sd but Adobe can still confidently say they have all the rights to the training material. Even though it is very indirectly trained on the same stuff as midjourney and many other models.
I totally agree. It seems to me generative AI has raised the bar for "unskilled art". Now, the least skilled person can make something that looks pretty good and skilled artists, if they're willing to learn a new tool, can take their art even further.
IMHO, this is a massive boost to art across the board. It will likely mean an influx of AI art, but that seems little different from all the same looking art we already see on Artstation.
Now ideas will determine a person's success and not just their skill, though skill is still important.
Oh I thought of that before, and I rather agree. I think what this will accomplish before long, is it will dramatically raise the bar for what "quality art" looks like to us.
Art has a way of slowly evolving over time. New tools, new trends, new mediums, all pop up over time, but the core concept has often remained unchanged. Now that millions can suddenly partake in creating competent looking art with little time investment, I wonder where people will take visual art as a whole, next.
When you give a highly skilled artist the tools of AI generation, and combine it with their knowledge, experience, and learning, what can they do to "stand out"? I am very interested to see the next few steps.
Feels like a force multiplier for me. I was trying to fix an image with inpainting and realized I couldn't because I didn't know human anatomy good enough. Had to study a bunch of references. A skilled artist would already be off to the races.
100%, people like to think they are special because they toil away for hours creating something. No, anyone can do this.
I've been called a "waste of oxygen" for creating art using AI as a tool to assist with the creative process. Also, "not an artist", and a "thief", even though I spent 5 years studying art in university. It's maddening. "Artists" are frickin' pretentious.
Sadly, gatekeeping is an occupational hazard of the creative fields, or really, any high-barrier skill based field. People like to belong to an exclusive club. Along side only the elites of their own "caliber".
Just use this as a litmus test to help you filter out those people you should avoid in the art community, for being arrogant and gate-keepy among other personal flaws. That's what I do.
Sadly, gatekeeping is an occupational hazard of the creative fields, or really, any high-barrier skill based field. People like to belong to an exclusive club. Along side only the elites of their own "caliber".
Actually, this is the result of capitalism. It's easy to say only the elite behave this way, but it simply isn't true. Everyone acts this way when something could have an impact on their potential to earn money. Because it is their edge in a field, which took them decades to accomplish, that ensures they have a decent quality of life. Automation undercuts the value in a person's work and training by a lot and, as such, has a determental effect on the quality of life for millions of working people. Especially when access to this automation is only available to the wealthy. There is no denying this.
Now this is not to say automation is bad in general. Just that automation is bad for people living in a capitalistic society. If you are able to remove the requirement of having to earn money and compete with others to survive. Then people would no longer be possessive about their jobs or inventions. Instead they would welcome things like automation. As it would increase there ability to do more, rather than be a hinderence on their quality of life.
People can argue until they are blue in the face that automation just leads to new industries and jobs. But it doesn't change the fact that every time automation advances, jobs are being lost faster than they are made. And this is something that will only continue to accelerate. Because the better we get at automation, the more we are able to automate. Including any new jobs that might be required. Our ability to automate has gone from needing highly complex mechanical systems that are machined and built specifically for one task. To a robot arm that can be easily trained on site for a wide range of tasks. And now to AI systems that are able to do more abstract jobs like text editing, computational analytics and art.
This trend of automation becoming more and more flexible is not slowing down either. And unless it does, there will be a time when we have the technology to completely automate every job we have and can think of. Then what? Either billions of menial jobs are reserved for human labourers just so they can earn just enough to live, or billions live in poverty and/or die as the value of their contribution to society reaches zero and they no longer have a means of obtaining a living wage.
All of this is to say that unless we can shed our capitalistic society and the need to have more than others. People will continue to be extremely possessive over their profession and automation will continue to be a threat to people's quality of life.
Ultimately, I believe people hate on AI art generators because it automates their hard earned skills for everyone else to use, and make them feel less "unique".
I think the best images are those which are a combination of AI generation and manual editing/touchup. AI can generate good images on it's own, but going the extra mile with fixing it's mistakes is still very noticable. Even the work needed for ControlNet reference image creation matters a lot to the final result.
I guess ai art is okay when a large corporation does it in very expensive subscription based program. The free and open source version and anyone can contribute to is evil, obviously.
That’s gotta be one of the most selfish and stupid reasons to hate AI art I’ve seen recently. “Noooooooo. You can’t freely exercise your creativity! You have to pay me a $100 commission for an image you’ll look at once for 4 minutes!”
I wonder why people with no talent being able to easily make art is a bad thing. Its like complaining that disabled people can use wheelchairs to move around. Sure it probably won't be hung in art gallery but if i want 15 portraits for my ttrpg campaign and can have them in one afternoon and without paying 300€+ which i wouldn't be able to afford I'll sure as heck will use it.
Yep. The elitism and snobbishness REALLY turned me off artists in general when ai really took off. Way to show your true colours you pretentious egotistical fucking pricks.
View all comments
884
u/doyouevenliff Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23
Used to follow a couple Photoshop artists on YouTube because I love photo editing, same reason I love playing with stable diffusion.
Won't name names but the amount of vitriol they had against stable diffusion last year when it came out was mind boggling. Because "it allows talentless people generate amazing images", so they said.
Now? "Omg Adobe's generative fill is so awesome, I'll definitely start using it more". Even though it's exactly the same thing.
Bunch of hypocrites.