I'm gonna come forward and say that if you really feel threatened and angry by AI art, and you feel like your artistic endeavor is put at stake by it, you are gonna be the first to fall by it.
Even if you look at the best images put out by AI, like the one that won that art contest the other day, like i said at one point at much is wallpaper-grade art and nothing else. Yeah, it looks aesthetically pleasing and it's filled with intrincate detail, but if you look really closely it's meaningless detail, there's no direction, there's no purpose, it's detail just to make an "overall" piece look good.
Examples, the first two images are created by AI, and the other two are created by actual human beings.
Only a human, and a GOOD artist can put meaningful detail in a piece and have it a deeper meaning, not as an "overall" image but as something more intrincate and with more purpose.
Now, I'm gonna say this is not a Anti-AI art rant. I think AI art, used properly, is gonna be the best friend of a good artist. Like an exosqueleton can augment the physical abilities of an human being, AI can augment the creativity powers of a good artist, by giving you a good starting point to create something on your own way. A lot of times you know you have a "nice base idea" for a good art piece, and AI can help you develop this starting idea faster and help you through the rest of the art process.
TL;DR;
If you feel threatened by AI prompt machine, step up your game, do things for passion, not for money.
it's great other than the crosses on the rug i think
@karolat no, just the first two are AI
i have yet to see an AI piece that has intricate minute detail where you can tell things apart.
@hideki The people I’ve noticed are most rustled by AI art are those with a great deal of technical skill, but no real creativity, or sense of aesthetics. The type who can rapidly churn out something that is appealing as a bit of background art, but lacks any of the deeper details that would make it worth more than pure decoration. And, since the AI used for this stuff has pretty clearly demonstrated that it can’t understand any of the actual principles of making good art, the only people who should be feeling threatened are those who also can’t understand those principles.
> do things for passion, not for money.
Doing this stuff by hand has its own rewards. You are reverse engineering your visual cortex while talking to it.
All arguments that want to identify a difference in quality between ai art and human made might just be copes of the same sort that came up before computers became unbeatable in chess.
But, at the very least, there will always be the same place music on vinyl and books on real paper hold now.
People will want to have hand made art, precisely because it came from human hands.
The writer will use text input to create a baseline setting and characters, and then tell their story by generating each panel one by one, guiding and directing it through gradual iterated mutations, until it ultimately reflects their vision.
This is going to be a new media gray area between authors and artists, as people who'd normally be restricted to only text will suddenly be able to tell their stories visually as well. Also, expect lots of furry inflation porn.
@hideki
> Yeah, it looks aesthetically pleasing
You're already in luck if a person tell an actual painting apart from processed photo. They can, at best, appreciate your skill. If the theme of your art is not offensive to them — it's good art. Only a few can appreciate the artistic design/conception and see this meaning/direction 🤷
It's true for visual art, it's the same with music. Even with literature, which is based on language so it's least abstract.
And it's really sad.
