Community's feelings toward AI art

[cletus]

For me the biggest takeaway is now I have 150 images a week to download from DA instead of 100 AND I'm aware exactly of how AI art is created, but I get the sense that it's not the same thing as an actual artist making this stuff. So to be frank I'm a little annoyed at AI art as it's more work to add all this stuff to my collection and I'm not sure that it's real.

I guess it's the same way I've felt when I heard that there are now AI girlfriends and they are making robots that will keep the elderly company. For me it feels like if I ever become that lame and start talking to my toaster just shoot me. But then I've always been an introvert and so find needing companionship to be less of a need.

Overall as a sci-fi nerd I'm excited and terrified by all this.

 

[SBMcGraw]

Don't worry about AI.

While AI is getting more and more "technically correct", the stuff it produces has no soul. It's all mechanical. It's lifeless.

Every artist I've see post here infuses a large amount of their essence, their self, their very being into their work. One gets to see inside the mind of an artist by his or her work, and that's a good thing.

AI will never replace real artists. People will come to understand AI is not art, just a cheap imitation, and they will eventually reject it for what it is.

 

[cletus]

While AI is getting more and more "technically correct", the stuff it produces has no soul. It's all mechanical. It's lifeless.

Every artist I've see post here infuses a large amount of their essence, their self, their very being into their work. One gets to see inside the mind of an artist by his or her work, and that's a good thing.

AI will never replace real artists. People will come to understand AI is not art, just a cheap imitation, and they will eventually reject it for what it is.

Love this!

 

[3xPIN]

Legs disappear. The teeth are segmented. The feathers never touch. And if they do, it’s like the elbow, or something. The implication is all wrong.

Most fetish work is done by fetishists. It’s like a person who isn’t a fetishist (or thirsty af) is drawing it. So it ends up just being, “There. Done. Next.” Instead of, “How’s this? No, maybe this?! Yeah! That’s it! Oh, that’s hot! But what about…” There is deconstruction with a real artist. With AI it’s like you built a car out of motorcycle parts. It might run properly, but it’s just not right. It’ll always be a little off.

 

[MacD]

It's all mechanical. It's lifeless.

True for me also.
The same for a lot of 3D art. Often colors, shading, light effects and all that is 100% correct but the actual content is weak and without emotions.

 

[spikedpsycho]

90% abominations

 

[GhostOS]

I'm an artist and I find AI generated art fascinating. Is it art? Yes it is. Thd definition of "Art" is anything artificially created (so not spontaniously created by nature or inanimate processes) that doesn't by itself has any real functionality. You could argue that a beautiful vase is a piece of art functional, but in that case the design aspect is the art. The vase doesn't need to be beautiful to be functional. In fact, if the vase was just a plain plastic cylinder it would have the same functionality. So AI "art" is, like it or not, art. But so is a thoughtless scribble on some scrap paper, or a banana taped to a wall. It doesn't mean it's aesthetically any good, or gives it any value. Value is entirely subjective and up to the viewer to decide on. Hence the stupid prices paid for some items -like that banana taped to the wall.

When people say AI art has no soul, that's kind of relative as well. There's a theoretical (though incredibly slim) chance that an AI will generate a perfect, beautiful piece from scratch. But most of the time it has flaws, if not visual, then it's contextual flaws. I like to compare an AI program to a monkey. The monkey is incredibly good at copying aspects of the art creating process, blending colours, brushstrokes, even stylistic choices. The monkey is lightning fast too. However the monkey doesn't understand what it's painting. In time, the monkey might refine it's techniques, make less obvious mistakes, but in the end, it will still be a monkey. Currently it's all about curation, and (extensively) fixing by a skilled artist/designer of the generated outputs. A person who hasn't got the trained eye of a creator, can easily be wowed by most current AI outputs. This is why so many AI art that's being posted looks uncanny, or soulless, because it's full of small flaws that your brain picks up on as "wrong".

I think AI will make for a great tool in the workflow of digital artists though. The dogswork of any piece is right in the middle of the process. The initial work; the sketching, the composition, laying down the base colours and shading is fast and fun. The detailing part and touch ups at the very end is pretty quick and satisfying too. It's the stuff in the middle, the the tedious blending, adjusting and correcting that takes hours if not days and is terribly boring. Now what if an artist sets up an rough image, gives this image to the AI to interpret in a style of their choice, and then take this hybrid output and proceed with the final phase as usual. It would supercharge that artist, making it possible to bring more ideas to life that would otherwise never seen the light of day. Every artist is better off with an apprentice to do the drudgework, even if that apprentice is a highly skilled monkey.

 

[Pghtkltorture]

I’ve started treating the creation of AI art as a game where you try to successfully create an image and you either win and get an image or lose.

Personally, I love tickling art. It has always been one of my favorite sections on the TMF but over the years the art has fallen into a few categories:

Poser art - this is the art that feels lifeless to me. The stuff that looks like it was created for an Xbox game in 2001

Fakes - photoshopped celebrity heads on tickle models bodies. Badly Photoshopped people with captions next to them

Great Art but not free - every hobby has to be a side hustle.

The rare free art which is amazing, but I get why people don’t produce much of it. There is nothing worse than spending a ton of time creating something only to get 500 views and 0 comments. And i am guilty of this too.

So yeah don’t have a negative opinion of AI art but see why it’s becoming prevalent

 

[GhostOS]

I’ve started treating the creation of AI art as a game where you try to successfully create an image and you either win and get an image or lose.

Personally, I love tickling art. It has always been one of my favorite sections on the TMF but over the years the art has fallen into a few categories:

Poser art - this is the art that feels lifeless to me. The stuff that looks like it was created for an Xbox game in 2001

Fakes - photoshopped celebrity heads on tickle models bodies. Badly Photoshopped people with captions next to them

Great Art but not free - every hobby has to be a side hustle.

The rare free art which is amazing, but I get why people don’t produce much of it. There is nothing worse than spending a ton of time creating something only to get 500 views and 0 comments. And i am guilty of this too.

So yeah don’t have a negative opinion of AI art but see why it’s becoming prevalent

This exactly! I was out of the loop for over a decade, and when I got back to the community here it's changed so much. I blame the rise of Patreon for the almost entire disappearance of the 4th category. Back then, there were a lot of fetish artists doing comics and other works, publishing them either through a publisher (like MTJ) or via some sort of webstore of their own. Usually they got some percentage of the sales revenue (like 50% or so, depending on how many people were involved and such) so they had a lot of incentive to gain exposure by doing free art, collabs and such to create a solid fanbase and advertise the publications they had out there. Now everybody and their dog has a Patreon account and they're all running the hamster wheel like mad just to meet the monthly goals of their Patreon tiers and what have you, and not lose any subscribers. It's really a very sad development, and indeed I can see why people jump to AI so eagerly. Lately that new Bing based generator shows some promise creating tickling pics as I've seen. Still flawed, but a lot better (the times one can fool it to ignore it's own censorship programming.

 

[manon_earth42]

LOL! It's only a matter of time before someone puts big money behind AI "Porn-hub" type stuff. And in that application the explicit will become even more detailed. I predict a day when you'll be able to custom order AI fetish content with few or no restrictions... and nobody will complain. Will "real art" be lost to the ages? I think not, and it may well inspire new artists to express all the things that AI can't do =)

 

[GhostOS]

LOL! It's only a matter of time before someone puts big money behind AI "Porn-hub" type stuff. And in that application the explicit will become even more detailed. I predict a day when you'll be able to custom order AI fetish content with few or no restrictions... and nobody will complain. Will "real art" be lost to the ages? I think not, and it may well inspire new artists to express all the things that AI can't do =)

OMG I would love to see the first iterations of such an AI implementation, it would be like the fetish versions of those weird "the Rock eating Rocks" or "Will Smith eating spaghetti" AI videos, it would be so wrong yet at the same time so amusing! XD

 

[monkeydick]

yeah ai isn't "art". if someone didn't put in the effort to draw it it's not art. it just takes stuff from actual artists. it's all garbage.

 

[areenactor]

i'm against it.

steve

 

[Ticool]

While AI is getting more and more "technically correct", the stuff it produces has no soul. It's all mechanical. It's lifeless.

Every artist I've see post here infuses a large amount of their essence, their self, their very being into their work. One gets to see inside the mind of an artist by his or her work, and that's a good thing.

AI will never replace real artists. People will come to understand AI is not art, just a cheap imitation, and they will eventually reject it for what it is.

Honestly, AI is good for those who can't draw and don't want to pay an artist to draw their ideas for them. But of course, it's not perfect

 

[cletus]

Honestly, AI is good for those who can't draw and don't want to pay an artist to draw their ideas for them. But of course, it's not perfect

Yeah you know this new AI craze unless I'm mistaken in how it's created is reminding me very much of 2005 in the college dorms my friends and I farting around with a software calling fruity loops making techno music, but none of us were musicians at all.

 

[Toesheldback]

I think there is plenty of room for both. In fact, artists are using AI in addition to their own skills.

I recently put together a business plan for a very specific purpose. I used AI to help me draft it. It saved me at least 50% of the time I’d have spent on it otherwise. It’s a tool, not a complete solution.

 

[raslebe]

The part that excites and scares me is that the capabilities of these tools are going to get more advanced, and the uses these tools get put to will get harder to predict or control.

For example, you can already make crude non-pornograpghic videos - what happens when you can make halfway decent ones? Or halfway decent porn?

Things are gonna get a little strange.

It's good that we're seriously talking about it now.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

 

[Kalamos]

I draw.
And yet, I welcome AI as an interesting tool that broadens and advances my horizons.


People are drooling after digital anime art, a lot, already.
Especially, collections with scores of different versions of the same scene, different by a few details.
Do you guys know that digital art was AI-assisted already, or at least, had helping tools in place, that made it more streamlined than physically drawing with a pencil on a scrap of paper...?
Just try watching anything with "vector art", and that's not even something new: the program will smooth out your lines in ways my old pencil and ink will never be able to match.


Complaining about AI art having no soul is the usual "get off my lawn" kind of remark.
Art stopped having soul when we started making it by a deadline.
Posting free stuff, only for the same anime art to be flooded with comments, didn't help either.


Yes, I have a Patreon account too.
I made to force myself to keep drawing, because I was in severe burnout, and I needed something to ease me around.
Money during pandemics sure helped with my artist's block.
And sure, my current art is cruder than my older stuff.
But I'm not walking on raw bones anymore.


Common final users will probably embrace AI art - because, let's face, some people just want a quick fix.
Free, if possible.
And I wonder how many people would recognize AI art, if properly fixed/doctored, after generation.


Some artists will keep up drawing.
Maybe they'll be taking up, or resurrecting, archaic techniques.
They'll become more like artisans and less like content farms.

Be prepared to fork out lots of money, for that calligraphy pen tickling fanart.

 

[PK Fire!]

I like artists because the originality, if there is someone's work you like you are likely to support them. Briel7 and FTKLs old stuff for coloring and details was outstanding. For pure realistic sinister settings and devices, I love Shock and dtka66 and there imagination. As of right now AI just simply cannot match the sole of these artists, who are a few of my faves.

 

[Kalamos]

I feel some of you have never seen recent AI art from decent generators.

The issue with AI art is not the lack of a soul - some artists work with 3d models, or use assisted vectors, or just collage things together.
The big PERCEIVED issue is AI generated art allegedly borrows bits from actual photos and art - from actual human photographers and artists - in way we cannot truly understand, with no compensation or even credits.
Because it's unclear how AI parses those pictures, and how copyright and royalties should be enforced or attributed.

I'd love if somebody were to post a mix of AI and human produced art; see how many of you would spot the differences, in how many samples.
If anything, by your own reasoning, AI *steals* the soul from artists.

 

[LisaLisaJam]

I draw.

And I wonder how many people would recognize AI art, if properly fixed/doctored, after generation.

You speak the truth sir. There is some incredibly done AI "pictures" of woman or whatever that for a long time, sometimes minutes, as I looked close, I couldn't tell if it was a real photograph or not. Some stuff is so high quality that it looks THAT real.

For me, I welcome all the cool stuff AI "drawing" brings. Like I think I mentioned before, a creator can do things with it that you can NEVER accomplish with real humans and a camera. It's pretty fascinating and exciting.

 

[manon_earth42]

Think of AI "art" in the same way that we think of any music that samples or borrows from previous works. Is that not still art even if it's in part derived from other works? Like in hip-hop or other popular genres of music...

Suffice to say, if AI art isn't traditionally recognized as "art" I certainly appreciate the work from which it was derived from and I think it's sources of origin should be credited.

 

[ticklishtrav]

I don't know why... but AI art looks very accurate but totally fake at the same time

 

[BlasterMaster]

It's theft. Pure and simple. It steals from copyrighted artwork.

I don't care if you can't draw. You don't get to post copyrighted artwork from other artists as your own creation.

 

[Mr. Roboto]

It's theft. Pure and simple. It steals from copyrighted artwork.

I don't care if you can't draw. You don't get to post copyrighted artwork from other artists as your own creation.