FA+
Shop
AI Art Generators Are NOT the End.
3 years ago
There has been a LOT of alarmist thinking going around about AI art generation and I want to take a moment to talk about that and present my view on it. I DO NOT FEAR AI ART GENERATORS, and I don't think ANY artist should. That includes smaller artists and those who are just starting out and trying to make a name for themselves
AI art generation is essentially the industrialization of the art-making process, which is something that just about every other handicraft has gone through. But what happens when you industrialize a process? Let's start by looking at the printing press. Once it came about, books no longer had to be copied by hand! Books became much cheaper as a result, and were much more widely available to those who couldn't afford them before. That's fantastic!
Nowadays, almost everybody has access to a computer and a printer. You can type out and print whatever you want. And despite this, you know what is STILL around? Hand-written calligraphy. Even to this day, there are people who will HIRE somebody to handwrite fancy party invitations and the like. Because it is a LUXURY.
Let's compare it to something like candle or soap making. These are processes which have undergone industrialization a long time ago. But you still have tons of folks with shops on Etsy selling handmade candles and soaps. Which are considered LUXURY goods. Sewing, weaving, woodworking, you name it! Even after we have industrialized any given craft; the slower, less efficient 'handmade' process is still considered desirable as a luxury.
Do you know what AI art means for the fandom? Broke furries that can't afford commissions are gonna be able to make their own cool images of their sonas, develop reference sheets, icons, etc. on their own. I think that's great! AI art generation is only gonna be the end of artists if every single person out there suddenly decides they no longer want actual, hand-drawn, commissioned art.
Which is NEVER going to happen.
AI art generation is essentially the industrialization of the art-making process, which is something that just about every other handicraft has gone through. But what happens when you industrialize a process? Let's start by looking at the printing press. Once it came about, books no longer had to be copied by hand! Books became much cheaper as a result, and were much more widely available to those who couldn't afford them before. That's fantastic!
Nowadays, almost everybody has access to a computer and a printer. You can type out and print whatever you want. And despite this, you know what is STILL around? Hand-written calligraphy. Even to this day, there are people who will HIRE somebody to handwrite fancy party invitations and the like. Because it is a LUXURY.
Let's compare it to something like candle or soap making. These are processes which have undergone industrialization a long time ago. But you still have tons of folks with shops on Etsy selling handmade candles and soaps. Which are considered LUXURY goods. Sewing, weaving, woodworking, you name it! Even after we have industrialized any given craft; the slower, less efficient 'handmade' process is still considered desirable as a luxury.
Do you know what AI art means for the fandom? Broke furries that can't afford commissions are gonna be able to make their own cool images of their sonas, develop reference sheets, icons, etc. on their own. I think that's great! AI art generation is only gonna be the end of artists if every single person out there suddenly decides they no longer want actual, hand-drawn, commissioned art.
Which is NEVER going to happen.
However, this is a separate topic from that of my journal and I would need more research to engage it properly.
Corporations make soaps, candles, books, blankets, furniture etc.
There are folks who make a living selling HANDMADE soaps, candles, books, blankets, furniture etc.
This was the entire talking-point of this journal.
What can a corporation do with AI generated art that the average person can't?
I'll always prefer commissioning art or drawing it myself though. Because if you keep practising, you'll get better and better. :D
As for AI art being 'art theft', that is a whole separate subject which would merit its own line of discussion and I want to stay on topic.
Well, I mean more like, at least admit an AI generated it and you did not actually draw it. XD
You can stamp out 1,000,000,000 pieces of art with AI, but you'll not get it creating the stamps to begin with!
Now, I certainly agree with your opinion that traditional art-making is not gonna dissapear (if it didn't dissapear with photography, it certainly won't with this), but let's not act like there's no legal or moral issues that arise with the perfecting of this technology, which is honestly far more complicated than photography, for what art is concerned.
My personal gripe with this situation is certain opinions I've encountered online of people who began using these AIs recently, and who seemed to be outside of the "art circles" and who somehow seem to believe that because they are riding the wave of an outstanding tool, they get to claim the future of art in a very cynical way.
These people use arguments such as "it's the same as when artists get inspired by other artists' styles"; "artists are trying to gatekeep their style and don't want people to learn"; "it's just like sampling in music", and so on, all of which are arguments who don't really hold much weight once you think about them for longer than 5 seconds.
My main concern would be for these attitudes to get more traction, specially with younger generations that could be seduced by deciding to focus on this tool that will only get better and more precise with time, and thus could actually be damaging whatever potential they might be able to hone, if they actually decided to focus on developing skills instead of prompting text to a machine.
Anyway, sorry for this little rant! I certainly agree with what I feel is the main position of your journal which is that panic is not a productive sentiment to be having, and we should try to think both critically and calmly about our opinions on this subject.
As for whether or not AI generated art is actually 'art', or if it should be considered art theft; those are their own separate arguments. I WILL say that AI art generation feels akin to 'Photomanipulation', and 'AI generated art' will likely develop into a category of its own as it gains popularity? But beyond that I don't want to go off topic, and would prefer to stick to the original point of discussion in my journal.
With AI there's no context, no background history of the creator,
no sense of creative style that can only be organically felt by environmental and genetic influence (AI's for now can only tryout templated styles and art mediums.), and no communicable feedback and interactions between the artist and the viewers.
I don't think we'll see a perfected AI that's capable to mimic an organic human making art in our lifetime neither.
In fact, the conflict between printing automation and the scribe profession, was so intense, that it left a mark in how spelling works in multiple languages. You can still READ to this day the traces of a profession's desperate and ultimately vain fight for its survival. For instance adding letters to earn more money, as scribes were often paid by number of pages calligraphied, that's one example of desperate measures to try and live off a living avenue that was DYING.
And nowadays, only the very best may live off of a profession that's retreated into extremely niche domain which is by the way also relying on the technology it was combating.
If we transpose it to furry art it would be like artists being reduced to only the very best fine artists making an actual living, while anyone who's below excellence is at best forced to cut corners left and right, doing 50 YCHs a week assisted by an AI, at "worst" (which btw I find a much better arrangement personally XD) doing art as a side gig at most, and having a dayjob as their main source of income.
Ultimately this asks you what you think of drawing as a business, should it become more democratized and/or efficient? does the human element of art make it drastically different from printing or preparing burgers? those are interesting questions we can talk a whole lot about. I'm very intrigued by AI art (I do consider it art; it is employed nowadays by artists https://youtu.be/i9InAbpM7mU and IS actually thought-provoking, I often find myself relating to wtf the AI thinks represents this or that emotion adequately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXxJUi2ckVc). Is it kind of a tragic situation? Yes, I don't think there's a way around that. Should we combat it knowing that the less than excellent artists (no disrespect, I'm way below average myself) will not make a living off art in the future? I think it's wiser to find ways to adapt.
No, I don't think it does. But I think the people getting upset by AI art DO think it's different.
'Preparing burgers,' let's explore this analogy. Why did you choose this particular example? I would guess that is because it is a job that many folks consider to be demeaning, unsatisfying, and requires very little skill or training. It's easy to make that assumption when you can go somewhere like McDonalds and buy a hamburger for $1. BUT, we also have fancy, expensive restaurants that serve gourmet burgers. We have folks who drive around food trucks and sell their own unique 'artisanal burgers.' How do places like this exist when a much cheaper option is available?
Luxury goods. Back to my original point. It feels good to buy yourself something expensive from time to time. It feels good to give yourself a little treat. Some people can afford more expensive treats than others. But that's why we can have fancy five star gourmet restaurants alongside artisanal food trucks and even McDonalds.
Because of this, I don't think it's correct to think that the art industry will be shrunk down to only the most experienced artists (which I do not count myself among either.) Anyone can use AI art generators to make something for themselves, but it won't FEEL the same as paying someone else to give you and your idea time and attention. Not everyone would be able to afford a super expensive artist like MilesDF (just to name an example almost everyone is familiar with.) His work is in very high demand, and as such, he is able to charge as much as he does.
But just because they can't get art from him, that doesn't mean they suddenly don't want art! Instead, they'll find someone else who is both available and within their price range.
And just because we'll have the much more affordable option of AI generated art, doesn't mean people will want to stop treating themselves by going out and buying something they could otherwise make themselves, at a much lower price.
The 'human element' isn't exclusive to art. It can be found in those other handcrafted goods I mentioned earlier. Or even in something as simple as a hamburger.
Actual A.I. doesn't exist yet, that we know of.
But yeah... Just like photoshop and the invention of pens and pencils, the art community of their times screamed and yelled about how it's not "real" art if it is created with those new things.
But technology will continue, no matter how butthurt they are about it.
Machine Learning art generators will be the next big tool in artist's toolboxes. It will make already good artists BETTER and will open a new world of art and creativity to people that may not have been artistically inclined.
Now when it comes to outright copying other people's art, there might be an issue there if it is blatant... But when it comes down to it, artists have been copying and influenced by other artists since art has been a thing. They often learn from other artists and this is why there are so many similar "styles".
Hell, just look at anime and how it all pretty much looks the same.
A lot of times recently, people only get outraged at award-winning machine learning art when they find out afterward it was created through text prompts and digital editing. They called it AMAZING and BEAUTIFUL and UNIQUE before finding out it was generated by a program.
The same thing goes for machine-learning generated music.
There will always be traditional artists, nothing is going to replace them, because they are "traditional". But if they want it to be a full-time job they may have to work a bit more to pump out cheaper commissions and such to support their more time-involved traditional art.
When it comes down to it, what is or isn't "art" is up to the individual to decide.
Machine Learning "A.I." art and music generators are not going to go away, and will only get exponentially better. So it will become a case of "Get on-board early or get run over by it later".
Common use of the term "AI" does usually refer to the machine learning algorithms and the models those algorithms produce. Like, its not even just a Twitter or everyday person thing, universities and journals commonly use ML and AI interchangeably. You'll find countless colleges that have minors or groupings of CS courses under an "Artifical Intelligence" umbrella.
If we're getting super nitpicky, artificial intelligence really refers to a broad field of study in which machine learning and generalized AI exist as categories within. Assuming you're talking about AGI, yes obviously nothing like that really exists yet and we're still figuring out how to define true "real artificial intelligence". But don't be reductive because someone uses commonly accepted terminology, it's rude and distracts from valid discourse.
I also don't know what college you went to, but the class I went to on it, the first thing told to us is that A.I. doesn't actually exist that we know of yet, but that machine learning may one day lead to actual A.I., and that referring to machine learning as "A.I" was a common "Misnomer"...
So, I'll get right on it and hit the "Turbo" button on my 90s computer tower that must be attached to an internal combustion engine turbo, otherwise, why would it be called a Turbo? That way I can shoot off an email to the professor that lets him know he was seriously wrong and should be fired for differentiating programmed machine learning from self-writing and self-aware computer artificial intelligence.
Take the L fam
People should try these systems out and see for themselves what the implications are. It can get pretty nuanced and uncertain:
If someone uses AI to generate references with which to practice 3D modeling, I wouldn't hate the AI user for it. If they use it to quickly generate textures for an incomplete game (aka "programmer art"), that wouldn't be a problem for me either. Non-procedural textures rely on a lot of sources, often un-credited... Perhaps texture artists can do a better job of that though, you know, so that their employers don't get sued. And perhaps that 3d modeler in the first example should learn to draw if they haven't already, as doing so would greatly improve their ability to sculpt and model.
But if they use AI to generate concepts or fully illustrated characters for games and film, then I'd start to have issues with it. Why? Because that specifically replaces people or at best minimizes their role to "retoucher". If I "Get on-board early" and use it now, it'll only ever be a crutch for me because I have shortcomings that can only be beaten through practice. Through the adoption of AI in my work, I might only get practice in correcting artifacts. I might only ever be an error-correction drone, not a character artist, not a concept artist. Granted... the implications are much harder when they hit something I care about. This in turn, makes me wonder about the things I'm "okay with", as it should.
Even when it's finally acceptable: through the adoption of public domain or opt in/out datasets, resolved court challenges, and the benefit of time allowing people to get used to it: there are drawbacks. It's still a crutch. It will still reduce the available pool of jobs, which in turn reduces the number of people willing to develop the expertise to do the work, which in turn can reduce the quality of the work whether its AI or not.
At the end of the day though, what matters is time vs money. Capitalism doesn't care about expertise. It doesn't care about quality. It doesn't care that the people producing things even know what they're doing. Just look at the fit and finish of some of the most popular cars coming out now. The only thing you can count on is that most of what's out there is "good enough". So long as people buy it, it'll keep getting sold. What's acceptable can be shifted. In a weird way, its like a long-con, but the victim is everybody, and the folks who objectively win out are hard to pin down.
As for getting on-board? Well, eventually your art job will require it. It's easier to shift what you consider acceptable when it's work you do to keep the lights on. If you're already in that world you may make that calculation and decide it's okay to just be an error-correction drone for a while. Better than than unemployed right? But if you're on the outside, like me, and you see this stuff threatening your dream job? Well... maybe the dream is dead. I don't want to be a retoucher. Maybe I'm fine right where I'm at and drawing for fun. If enough people do that we just won't have the expertise available when we finally do need something more.
Some people win out, I just don't see anyone winning without losing something.
Though I don't think it will be so all-encompassing that people would suddenly have to give up traditional or digital art to deal with only A.I. generators, especially considering that likely in just a few year's time they will be so much more insanely easy to use.
This will end up being a revolution in media creation, and it is going to happen FAST, no matter how much people might hate it or try to fight it. It is NOT going to be stopped or slowed especially considering a lot of it is already open-source and FREE, so the only thing standing in the way is a decent internet connection and a powerful enough computer or subscription to cloud computing power... At least for now.
Sure, people that do traditional/digital art for fun will be fine, it's not going to be forced on recreational and occasional commission people at gun-point.
Hell, I wanted to be a professional film photographer at one point, then photoshop was invented, then every cellphone on the planet came with a built-in HD camera, now there are programs on phones that can auto-edit photos with a few taps to the point there isn't much need for photoshop anymore. So I became an auto mechanic instead. lol
Machine learning is going to be killing or diminishing a LOT of jobs in the next few years, from artists to accountants, and even doctors and lawyers... What used to take many people to do a job will now be done by a lot less. Just like robots replaced a lot of factory workers. And a lot of those professionals are going to either be reduced to error-checking, or running a less profitable "old school" version of their business/profession (possibly in another country), or have to get a different job. So it is really going to suck for those people that do these things professionally for a living.
And compared to previous tech breakthroughs in the art and media worlds, I still stand by the "get on board" thing just to get familiar with what is coming down the line, so it doesn't just broadside someone in the art field out of the blue, so to speak. It doesn't mean quitting your job in art now and devoting yourself to the machine learning overlords. You know what I mean?
so the only thing standing in the way is a decent internet connection and a powerful enough computer or subscription to cloud computing power... At least for now.
Regarding cloud computing: you'll need many iterations to produce anything worthwhile. DallE charges are small but they add up. So you can have a task in mind yet have no idea how much it'll cost to produce. It might come out right the first time, or you might have to fight with it. It probably depends on how common an idea it is... and if it's generic maybe it isn't worth doing.
Meanwhile, I could just draw it.
I'll know roughly how much time it takes to finish a given drawing. From that I can estimate something comfortable to cover the potential that it'll take me longer than the mental estimate.
A subscription based AI service could work out, but then you'll be paying for time you aren't using. So either way it might be cheaper to hire an artist.
Cheaper still if you hire an artist and through him externalize the cost of the software (ala Photoshop CC).
Even open source can cost. Assuming the best-case scenario with no hidden fees or licensing rules, you're paying for the software with time you might otherwise save using a polished commercial product.
Hell, I wanted to be a professional film photographer at one point, then photoshop was invented, then every cellphone on the planet came with a built-in HD camera, now there are programs on phones that can auto-edit photos with a few taps to the point there isn't much need for photoshop anymore. So I became an auto mechanic instead. lol
I took a photography class years ago and really liked it. It taught me things about Photoshop that I didn't know from just playing with it. We didn't learn to work with film though. I think the art is still alive - but there's parts of it, like film developing, that have gone to the wayside and live on only as hobbies or in the gallery scene. I just hope that won't happen to drawing and painting.
It probably helps that it's so accessible. You don't need much, and even if you paint for real, you can get right to it using acrylic or watercolor and not have to worry about oils and special brushes or canvases. Children start with it at a young age. They might have access to computer art programs, but I don't see them working with AI. That'd probably bore them.
Meanwhile, you need a whole room for developing film, and chemicals. Kids don't do this, and even adults just had someone else do it.
So I became an auto mechanic instead.
How do you feel about electric cars? Don't they need less maintenance? Can you work on them now or do you need special certification? Though you didn't say otherwise, thinking about it now I realize the threat to our jobs goes beyond AI in the grand scheme of things. AI isn't just some new scary thing, it's an expression of an on going process.
I can replace the hybrid battery pack in a prius or honda insight or such with an aftermarket one for about $4,000 to $9000 when they fully crap out between 150,000 200,000 miles and they "might" go for another 50,000-100,000 miles before it craps out again... Meanwhile rebuilding a ford 4.6 V8 to last another 200,000+ miles is about $2500 to $4500. But the good part about hybrid cars like a Prius is that they can run entirely off the engine if the hybrid system fails. But an electric car has a single bad cell or software hiccup or kinked wire and you are stranded.
If it is tires and brakes and suspension components electric cars are easy to work with... Pretty much anything else I have to send the customer to the dealership.
And yeah you have to have a bit of training for electrics because of fire hazards and death by electrocution. Though most it is as simple as flipping a switch or plugging in an isolator.
I like electric cars, but only as a rich person's toy and 2nd car used for commuting if possible. Definitely not if you rent your living space and have to park on the street. If I could only have one car I'd take a late 90s Crown Victoria or Toyota Camry or Avalon and skip the hybrid or electric cars... Maaaaaybe I'd get a Prius if it is the station wagon one and already recently had the battery replaced.