No AI ART movement gains momentum on Artstation

[zaxxon]

There is a growing concern that imagery is being taken from online postings without the Artist's permission and being used to generate AI art.  This is going to be a very 'tricky' situation to work thru and I can see several legitimate 'sides' in the coming confrontation.  Personally, I wouldn't want one of my images to show up as somebody else's AI art creation, not that imitation isn't a 'form of flattery', but for me, it's my work and I don't want it messed with, and credit (in part) going to another person. The steps that Artstation is taking at least allows individual artists to make a statement (via a simple image of AI with a cross thru it) so that any would be copiers are advised against using that work. I'm fascinated with the growing body of AI art, and don't wish to be part of any 'censorship' (seems a pretty common word these days   ) involving someone else's creativity. So we'll see how this plays out. Perhaps this would be something for this Forum to explore?


https://stealthoptional.com/news/artists-rebel-against-ai-art-generation-with-mass-online-protest/

[zaxxon]

I'm just getting into this: here's another link:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/23/23523864/artstation-removing-anti-ai-protest-artwork-censorship

[KlausK]

Thanks for bringing his up here, zaxxon.
First off, I agree, Ai can produce surprisingly good results.
And I can understand why it attracts and astonishes a lot of people.

As I understand it artstation began to remove the Ai protest pics NOT the Ai created stuff.

Other than that...a short reply to begin with and get into this discussion:

Ai-"Art" is not art. Not at all.

There is no creativity involved in producing images by putting text into a form and letting the algorithm do its thing.
You cannot art-direct the outcome in a forseeable way.
You are simply training the machine until you - as an "artist" - are not needed any longer.
The databases which are out there by now are using everything they can find on the internet.
This is even worse than merely copyright infringements.
It is not a tool for the artist. It is just another tool designed to create revenue.
On the backs of people who work in the creative fields.
Behind the "Non-Profit Research" there is almost always a Profit oriented organization.
There is more but that`s it for a start from me.

I sometimes sit down for a while and feed these "open source" tools on the internet with nonsense.
That`s my -maybe rather- naive way of protest against this.

If this new technology would benefit all involved I would be all for it. But it does not and it never will.
Just some of my angry (maybe uninformed) thoughts about this.

CHeers, Klaus

[Dune]

This is indeed a new and bad situation, and I agree with Klaus; it's not Art, but just Easy Play, IMO. Very hard to combat, especially with good-resolution images being put on the web. I am always a bit reluctant about spreading my (better or commissioned) work without a watermark, but a watermark is of course ugly. And pieces may be cut out to be used.

The same is true for texts; AI seems to be able to produce really good 'stolen and combined' texts on an input sentence. So, for students it's real easy to 'write' their essays, get good marks and their graduation. But then? Same as with AI art, what kind of person are you then? Can you really make something? Can you succesfully work by yourself?

Interesting discussion, no doubt, but a future I somehow fear.

[zaxxon]

Well Klaus, I see that now as well.  When I first saw the no AI 'stickers' popping up on Artstation I thought that was a great idea, now it seems that Artstation is taking those down. That's a shame: probably on "Advice of Legal Counsel"...   I agree with Ulco that putting disfiguring watermarks on your work isn't a 'solution' and current legal practice in the field of posted music is that you can use someone else's music in your own creations as "fair use".  So we digital imagery artists probably fall into the same category. I've always enjoyed the idea that someone might want to use some of my high res images for wall paper or what not; I'm not truly against someone using my images as part of their AI creativity, just ask me and give me credit as well.  Whether derivative, AI assisted images/animations, is 'real' Art?  Well, I suspect 'History' will decide that it is; just look at any contemporary art gallery, and what passes for Art education in Academia these days. I have artist friends who thoroughly dismiss computer digital media as "not Art"; probably the pre-historic shaman cave painters would not recognize the work of Rembrandt or Monet as 'Art', much less Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko!  Rather then arguing the validity of the AI stuff, I think it would be good to think of ways to show work online but still maintain some proprietary control. My initial thought would be to only post low res images on public spaces and only show the higher res images at a site where the images are not down-loadable without the artist's permission.  Maybe a bit cumbersome, but imo worth some consideration.  I fear that it's 'open season' for image poachers and we'll have to live with it going forward.  

[WAS]

AI Diffusion cannot make exacting anything, so it's never a rip. It's just learning pixel data and wildly applying it based on your prompt. Lots of talk about plagiarism but not a single person who can prove it to have any legal weight in court. It's just the fact the art was trained on. Which often comes down to people wildly posting their art online looking for recognition without reading licenses of the places they upload too.

And honestly, art will be so accessible, that anyone that's actually a good artist will be able to charge a whole lot more, and make a whole lot more. This will roll over into production, especially when companies take the easy road and encounter situations they need something seriously curated for their uses.

It'll be just like those talentless computer artists who "have no artistic value and push buttons and use fake imitation brushes". Same exact topic. Especially when this field started heavily in photo manipulation based on... Other people's stuff... XD

Now a painting commissioned is worth a whole lot more than a much higher quality digital commission. 

[René]

Are AI generated images art? If by art is meant "fine art" then I have yet to see the first example of it, but of course it could be; nowadays anything can be art. That there is no creativity involved, well, you can make it as creative as you want it to be, and I have definitely seen examples of that, although mostly to do with original ideas. Getting the AI to do exactly what you want it to do is indeed still a problem, similar to explaining to someone minutely how to paint Rembrandt's Night Watch. I have "solved" this problem by making an initial sketch and using it as a starting point by the Ai, and then combining and correcting the results in Photoshop and touching up where necessary, and then feeding it back into the AI, and so on and so forth. This is very laborious, but I'm sure it will improve in the future. I think AI can be a useful tool for artists. It can act as an idea generator, as well as a way to quickly edit images - you already see it being incorporated into different software - and you can create different versions of your work. https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/controlnet-and-stable-diffusion-a-game-changer-for-ai-image-generation-83555cb942fc
For those worried about these developments, think what else AI can do if it can create "art." GPs, store workers, civil servants and many more professions are replaceable by AI. Developments are happening fast, very fast, and society is not prepared for them. A year ago hardly anyone had heard of text to image software, and now it is everywhere.

[WAS]

Are AI generated images art? If by art is meant "fine art" then I have yet to see the first example of it

Though if the current trending examples of fine-art are anything to go by, like our latest example of purchased toilets sprinkled with some splattered paint and signed... There has been a huge devolution of "fine-art" imo.There hasn't been a worthwhile exhibit at our museums in decades.

Art is entirely subjective, but when you say something isn't art, you establish it empirically as art. As that's how it works. Every new art medium to come out in the last 200 years was received poorly or "not art". People simply don't like change, and often take change as a threat.

Also ControlNET is a really cool abstraction layer idea for the attention layers. Can actually do the poses for people you want, or compose buildings just like you want.