FA+
Shop
On the whole AI thing…
3 years ago
We have an interesting dilemma in the world: is humanity actually special? Throughout the ages, humans have held on to all matter of idiotic notions in a desperate attempt to try and feel superior to all other life forms in the universe. At first, it was thought/reason, with people believing that animals only operated on instinct, then it became about religion (the “only humans have souls” levels of stupidity), then it became about technology, and then it became about art.
Perhaps it is the nature of having an ego that causes us to waste so much time trying to differentiate ourselves from everything else, while at the same time hobbling that identity with our instincts towards conformity. Humans are not rationale and have never had to be in order to survive. Machines and software have to be logical and functional in order to be effective. It’s a fascinating conflict of existence, but does it have to be a conflict?
I’ve never been great at drawing, mainly because I cannot break myself away from perfection and relax, so I don’t like the time it takes to make physical media. At the and same time, one of my art instructors said that if you don’t enjoy making art, it isn’t that you dislike art, it’s that you are using the wrong tools. It’s sort of like using a 2B pencil your whole life, maybe because you can’t afford anything else or it’s the easiest tool available. A 2B pencil can only do so much. Then there is the whole range of graphite hardness, then inks, gels, charcoal, and then colors: acrylic, oil, water, pastel, wines, etc.
And then there is digital art, where we have simulated the effects of all of the physical media above. This, for now, gets a pass, because the artist is still doing a lot of manual work and refining. But is digital art “fair” to traditional artists? I’ll bet most traditional artists will say no. Then you have 3D applications, with their advanced materials and lighting. Is 3D art “fair” to 2D digital artists? I’ll bet the 2D digital artists will say no.
At what point does an artist “cheat,” then? Is it third party stencils with 2D art? Brushes others have made in 2D digital art? Textures or materials others have made in 3D art? No one has a real answer, because there isn’t one, only opinions based on widely different levels of critical thought. These are all very legitimate questions and concerns, though. With “AI” (real AI isn’t a thing yet) applications, the questions get even more complicated.
As someone who has supported many artists over the years, I’m of mixed opinions on FA’s unenforceable and unrealistic ban on generative media. I want to see human effort rewarded. If anyone can press a button to make something, anyone will, and time and effort will always be the factor of separation between what is “good” or “bad.” Soon, we won’t be able to tell definitively what is generative, and there are already human artists being harassed and put down and told to change their styles. That is just wrong. Blanket bans don’t actually make anything go away, they are just meant to calm down the masses through security theatre and bullshit.
At the same time, furries, and by extension this site, are heavily blinded by what art encompasses. It’s visual. Except it isn’t. Writers are artists, musicians are artists, filmmakers are artists, game designers are artists, engineers are artists. I encompass all of it because I’ve never been able to be good at just one thing, and that sucks, honestly. These generative tools are a godsend because it allows me to use the skills I have tried to build upon and maintain over the last couple decades and finally use them to their full capacity, if my day job didn’t get in the way. People have always viewed me as a threat because of my intellectual capacity, creativity, and adaptability.
As someone who sunk $26,000 in debt to be a writer (I just loved writing, so I majored in what I loved), ChatGPT is the equivalent “threat” that Stable Diffusion is to many of you. But I love playing with it. If you are a real pro at what you do, you’ll quickly see how limited these tools, though amazing, are.
The way in which artists will navigate this rapidly evolving future is already in play: those of you that twitch stream (or equivalent) have already tapped into how you will survive. It is creativity as a social, live process no matter what tool you use. As someone who is generally antisocial, I definitely resent this new hell of human existence, as I am nobody’s content monkey. At the end of the day, I create tools for myself to push myself and my understanding as an individual. I do want to be better about sharing that with others, because I think that it is helpful, but it has never been a necessary priority. I suppose I am truly lucky in that way.
The whole point of progress and evolution is to make it easier for future generations to live and do what we do now, only better and faster. Technology always wins in the end, no matter what we think about it. There is a natural reason why, but this journal is already too long. :) In summation, I encourage everyone to be the best apex engineer and designer that you can personally be, no matter the medium. Philosophy and debate are fantastic, but we still have to get shit done in the end.
Perhaps it is the nature of having an ego that causes us to waste so much time trying to differentiate ourselves from everything else, while at the same time hobbling that identity with our instincts towards conformity. Humans are not rationale and have never had to be in order to survive. Machines and software have to be logical and functional in order to be effective. It’s a fascinating conflict of existence, but does it have to be a conflict?
I’ve never been great at drawing, mainly because I cannot break myself away from perfection and relax, so I don’t like the time it takes to make physical media. At the and same time, one of my art instructors said that if you don’t enjoy making art, it isn’t that you dislike art, it’s that you are using the wrong tools. It’s sort of like using a 2B pencil your whole life, maybe because you can’t afford anything else or it’s the easiest tool available. A 2B pencil can only do so much. Then there is the whole range of graphite hardness, then inks, gels, charcoal, and then colors: acrylic, oil, water, pastel, wines, etc.
And then there is digital art, where we have simulated the effects of all of the physical media above. This, for now, gets a pass, because the artist is still doing a lot of manual work and refining. But is digital art “fair” to traditional artists? I’ll bet most traditional artists will say no. Then you have 3D applications, with their advanced materials and lighting. Is 3D art “fair” to 2D digital artists? I’ll bet the 2D digital artists will say no.
At what point does an artist “cheat,” then? Is it third party stencils with 2D art? Brushes others have made in 2D digital art? Textures or materials others have made in 3D art? No one has a real answer, because there isn’t one, only opinions based on widely different levels of critical thought. These are all very legitimate questions and concerns, though. With “AI” (real AI isn’t a thing yet) applications, the questions get even more complicated.
As someone who has supported many artists over the years, I’m of mixed opinions on FA’s unenforceable and unrealistic ban on generative media. I want to see human effort rewarded. If anyone can press a button to make something, anyone will, and time and effort will always be the factor of separation between what is “good” or “bad.” Soon, we won’t be able to tell definitively what is generative, and there are already human artists being harassed and put down and told to change their styles. That is just wrong. Blanket bans don’t actually make anything go away, they are just meant to calm down the masses through security theatre and bullshit.
At the same time, furries, and by extension this site, are heavily blinded by what art encompasses. It’s visual. Except it isn’t. Writers are artists, musicians are artists, filmmakers are artists, game designers are artists, engineers are artists. I encompass all of it because I’ve never been able to be good at just one thing, and that sucks, honestly. These generative tools are a godsend because it allows me to use the skills I have tried to build upon and maintain over the last couple decades and finally use them to their full capacity, if my day job didn’t get in the way. People have always viewed me as a threat because of my intellectual capacity, creativity, and adaptability.
As someone who sunk $26,000 in debt to be a writer (I just loved writing, so I majored in what I loved), ChatGPT is the equivalent “threat” that Stable Diffusion is to many of you. But I love playing with it. If you are a real pro at what you do, you’ll quickly see how limited these tools, though amazing, are.
The way in which artists will navigate this rapidly evolving future is already in play: those of you that twitch stream (or equivalent) have already tapped into how you will survive. It is creativity as a social, live process no matter what tool you use. As someone who is generally antisocial, I definitely resent this new hell of human existence, as I am nobody’s content monkey. At the end of the day, I create tools for myself to push myself and my understanding as an individual. I do want to be better about sharing that with others, because I think that it is helpful, but it has never been a necessary priority. I suppose I am truly lucky in that way.
The whole point of progress and evolution is to make it easier for future generations to live and do what we do now, only better and faster. Technology always wins in the end, no matter what we think about it. There is a natural reason why, but this journal is already too long. :) In summation, I encourage everyone to be the best apex engineer and designer that you can personally be, no matter the medium. Philosophy and debate are fantastic, but we still have to get shit done in the end.
I dont like what AI as become. Where I feel free textures, vectors, brush effects on art programs is just being helpful parts of an art. That other artists sell or offer for free, is fine as ITS REAL art still, that was actually made by a person. Or even people who do Photoshop art with real pictures, for others to edit in their own project They were still made and offered by another person. Willingly. AI, steals. I hate how on DA people are all being lazy using AI how to make those adpotables. I use to buy from many people, but some I blocked and cut off as they now being lazy using AI art for adpotables
I feel like generative art now is a lot like mining in Minecraft. The whole concept is absurd but somehow relaxing through its basic levels of tedium but, after awhile, out pops something truly compelling that could only be possible after putting so much time into it. I try not to make it all that I post on Twitter, and I never pretend that it isn’t what it is out of transparency.
On the one hand, it lets me iterate very, very quickly on an idea to then take to traditional or digital media.
On the other, the vast majority of artwork used to train the models was done so without permission under the assumption "it's okay because it's public domain", or a slightly less ideal assumption, "we're using a 32x32 or 64x64 pixel image (or section of an image), there's absolutely no way any one image could ever play a significant role in the one the model generates, so it doesn't matter if it's copyrighted. We're just teaching the model what an "eye" (or tree, or whatever) looks like!"
The problem is, unless you use stupendously large training sets (hundreds of thousands of images) that can almost literally melt a high end GPGPU rack and take weeks or months to process, then yes that single 64x64 image can directly affect the end output.
This of course leads to "<AI Art Company> stole my artwork!" (well, they kind of did), because you get a final result that looks vaguely familiar to (or in the case of a small enough training set, virtually identical to someone's style.
Still, I remember when Painter first came on the scene and Photoshop wasn't just for Vogue to make women look impossibly (in the most literal sense) beautiful anymore!
The traditional media artists all decried it as The End™!
There were fights to ban digital artwork from galleries (it eventually got snuck in under the wide and nearly all encompassing term "mixed media" before being allowed its own categories).
Now, people see the various drawing programs as "just another tool".
I remember when music software like FruityLoops, GarageBand, Acid Music (before Sony bought them), and others first came on the scene.
There was unimaginable hate towards those of us using the software. Now, even the staunchest of "haters" are using Garage Band or Reason themselves and feign ignorance of the days they banned people from their prestigious "furry music sites".
Generative Art too, I think, will eventually be "just another tool". But we have to wait for the unreasonable fear and panic to subside first.
It’s interesting that so many tools have been through this cycle, as if there was an economic system in place meant to treat anything that democratizes a skill or society as evil. :) Now that I have used AI platforms a lot, I’m still not convinced if they are actually going to help me prototype art or if it’s just a distraction making me even less productive. 😆