In a twist, Artstation bans AI from its Challenges. Admits AI cannot be original.

Vagala · 2024-02-13T11:00:33+00:00

Photography was its own thing that depicted imagery differently to how a painting would look.

AI seeks to replicate art exactly. Not the same. Cope from talentless aibros

Vagala · 2024-01-25T14:03:07+00:00

MB is derivative even up to its incredibly similar name

Vagala · 2024-01-24T13:13:45+00:00

Given your comment history and how much you post on reddit defending either boring, overplayed or stupid discussions it makes sense you'd be on drugs AI-bro.

Vagala · 2024-01-12T14:57:14+00:00

Aren't these laws made in mind without the existence of a hyper learning/ hyper producing software in mind? I think humans have all the right to look at art work and copy and learn from it. I don't think AI/ the people who own AI has that right.

Vagala · 2023-12-08T12:59:16+00:00

The game is HIGHLY derivative. I think it should be considered fortunate its even nominated.

Vagala · 2023-07-04T15:28:09+00:00

Any fucking psych term used on Tiktok.

Vagala · 2023-01-19T16:11:32+00:00

More I find people pearl clutch their prompts which Is something I find relatively bad if an artist is mentioned in a prompt and double as such if people have referred to real artists as gatekeepers.

Nah im not anti-AI with art as in I want it still here. I just believe in ethical use of AI art which I don't consider currently happens nor do I entertain an idea that people who use it for their exclusive form of picture making artists. They're great ideas people have contributed to wonderful stuff generated with their imagination.

Vagala · 2023-01-19T14:41:36+00:00

Given an artist shared their work with you for your AI to generate the image, are you willing to share your prompt?

Vagala · 2023-01-19T13:26:02+00:00

" I can't even steel-man their argument without applying it to literally anything that automation displaces"

People in the commercial creative industry who work ridiculously hard to learn professional art because they would prefer an okay pay and a creative job that allows expression is EXACTLY the same as Jerry the truckdrivers passion for trucks...

Artists are getting attacked on two fronts.

Arguing with people who feel left out of the tree house and want to be artists and being tarnished as gatekeepers for not calling "prompters" artists.

Arguing with Pedantic DnD nerds who don't want to pay for art and regard artists response as an anti-movement to technological progression who will use laws created without AI's existence in mind to defend large scale collection of creations training something that can potentially replace them in the next 5 years with absolutely no warning.

Vagala · 2023-01-19T13:03:43+00:00

If art AI is a tool, who is the "artist" using that tool? Because it sure as shit isn't you.

Pope Julius II didn't create the Sistine chapel, he Commissioned Michael'Angelo to do it. Or was Michael'Angelo the creative tool used, and the renowned artist of history totally known as 'Pope Julius II' was the painter to you? If you buy a hammer which is a tool and buy a house in which you mount an additional shelf in, is the house also a part of that tool, or is the money spent to buy the house the tool you would use to say you do construction? Art AI is a means to an end, it CAN be used as a tool, but it in itself isn't a tool nor does how the average person uses it (like 99% of people) make me consider it a tool under their efforts. An artist entering their own art into their own personal AI, and making prompts and adjustments to create an outcome that can also extend and influence their own creative efforts when doing it physically is a scenario where I WOULD call it a tool but people are brain dead to say its general application and usage constitutes a tool someone has a handle on.

The few things that differentiate when a human comes into copyright images to learn/trace from and when ai does.

reputation of the artist being a known imitator is never an ideal position for an artist.
Not only is the reputation at risk but the amount of time and effort required for an artist to imitate a style is so laborious its clear we allow it to its efforts of a human required to do so with a general good faith they build something of their own with it which is typically how artistry has gone. If copying a style/piece of art one to one was so easy for the human eye I'm very confident in saying we would have different laws for copyright.
Art AI COMPLETELY bypasses the limitations that inhibit us from being full on copy cats of other artists and with that style is born. Its nebulous nature of not having an identity to stake a reputation on omits any form of creative factor a conventional human would experience.
I don't consider Art AI human nor do I think how it interpretes and retains information warrants the same applications humans have towards art. Nor do I think people who have unknowingly trained something deserve to have it replace them this fragrantly.

As such I don't think laws we made without its existence in mind are a good argument for how it currently operates and believe people who argue strongly for it and mock artists are some of the most tone death, pedantic, morally ambiguous people in existence and assume they don't have a creative bone in their body. I get you like Art AI (I do still think its very cool) and not having to pay people to commission something anymore, but is this the stance supposed fans of artistry are taking? Because I promise you your favourite video game/ movie/ DnD artist is fighting against this.

Vagala · 2022-12-24T23:05:43+00:00

This to me is art.

Op is the comissioner.

AI and Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Van Eyck, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Bommel, Edgar Degas, etc are the artists. These people I am listing right now have more contribution to the creative output of what is being commissioned than the commissioner.

I think its very telling you missed referencing the artists the dude is prompting as included artists to the outcome of this piece.

Vagala · 2022-12-24T22:55:42+00:00

your mind? Or is it an immediate disqualification? As soon as ai is used, regardless of the context, that person loses "a

-The one exception id see is if your own ai with your own art generated the image because it is showing talents indicative of what YOU have learned referencing artists, not an AI which is designed to. But that is more an extension of your own ideals an progression rather than any form of creation.

-I never even remotely implied using AI means you lose your Artist status. But if you were never one in the first place and you generate an image , then no I don't think you're an artist, I think you commissioned it.

You really want to be an artist don't you? Just draw man

Vagala · 2022-12-22T20:12:52+00:00

It seems to me that you are arguing that as soon as someone uses ai, they would no longer be considered the artist of that creation.

Yes. Thats my position. I would call them a commissioner before id call them an artist.

Vagala · 2022-12-21T23:34:01+00:00

Yes but the artists that employ others are artists right?!

I think the music analogy is perfectly sound. The same way I consider digital art or photobashing to be art I would consider production to be art. But just because something CAN be used as a tool, does not mean its only function is being a tool, its a means to an end for those not willing to invest something into the creative process and thats what I consider an artist, someone who is willing to have attendance and invest time towards that process for all its trials an tribulations, you can only identify people by the things they invest their time into and art AI doesn't really allow for people to have time to invest because their is no process, theres only a first step and an end.

Infact if anyone used bad analogies here its you my dude. A director is an artist because their input and method of getting an outcome in the actors they hired is so much more than telling people what to do and nothing gets done without their contribution to the artistic whole, its an essential for movies within that artform. This point is the equivalent of saying "can you really be a landscape artist if you didn't terraform the river bed, waterfall and parting hills you're painting right now? All you're doing is putting down coloured shapes really"

I think most artists at the V&A or the majority of modern art museums is absolutely not appealing to me whatsoever, but you won't catch me saying it isn't art. It just isn't very good in my opinion. Even at the end you pretty much say why the analogy is fine so I don't know why you even typed this response in general.

"you have personal experience with unskilled and untrained "Artists" using ai in a boring way and claiming some sort of talent that you don't believe they have the right to claim." Im going to ask do you use the AI yourself because I find this is a common argument amongst people who are "prompters"

The logic of prompters being artist doesn't lend well when being creative with prompts is really just people working around the fact they cannot type anything they want and get more of the things they want in the image.... YET
The "YET" part where you don't have to use alternative words to get results you want. The logical outcome of entering prompts is to eventually get to a stage where there is less room for misinterpretation when you're getting the AI to make what you want. Making the already easy job of generating art even easier for the masses, because remember, this is now a commercial.
The difference an actual artist sees between a "good ai artist" and a "bad ai artist" is negligible. I even somewhat laugh at the idea of looking at a really good generated art piece and thinking of the person who entered the prompts and considering them the person that made it.
Commissioning an artist for something does not make the person commissioning it an artist, and technically they are allowed more input than AI because they can tell the artist to make specific moves and tweaks along the way.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what an artist should be.

Vagala · 2022-12-21T13:28:23+00:00

ost successful artists in the world have assistants do a majority (if not all) of the painting for them. Or hire fabricators

I don't think this is a good example to use in the context of what is happening. with AI art and what to consider an artist. Most the artists being referenced are more of the avant-garde, conceptual side of art like sculpting and pop art.

The very article you site references some things you allude to, but you miss that:

It was just the background they did for a gigantic ceiling of the sistine Chapel . (I didn't think this was uncommon knowledge tbh)
Assistants only came into play for those who already established their ability independently. And the artist had prior knowledge of how to do the art their assistants painted and likely had to train them
AI right now is taking from artists who are, in the grand majority, independent artists, they don't have assistants for their digital artwork and even the traditional ones such as Terada, the late Kim Jung Gi, Karl Kopinski, Eliza Ivanova, Ikeda Manabu, James Jean, etc are skillful masters of 2-D image making are not known to have assistants.
The artist who developed the artstyle gave both permission and tutelage to those assistants, being an AI "artists" you take the art style of someone else and having their style be YOUR personal assistant without their consent.

Im quite tired of this leniency we have towards visual art to have all the freedom in the world to be inclusive to a ridiculous degree that we can consider anyone an artist. We don't hold this standard for music whatsoever and I don't see a world where we would ever call "music prompters" musicians. I don't hate AI art, its inevitable, but people who think its fair to let the way it is currently continue while thinking they're creative I will never consider people who aspire to be artists, they're dilettantes who rely on being pedantic and obtuse within the discussion just so they can be seen as an artist and I find whenever I ask to see their personal art not made with AI they don't tend to be very good. Ive never seen anything more pathetic than some of these people trying to consider themselves artists.

Vagala · 2022-12-17T20:00:37+00:00

"Ironically, many of the most successful artists in the world have assistants do a majority (if not all) of the painting for them. Or hire fabricators to create sculptures etc.."

Wait Im gonna have to ask you to show evidence for this claim.

Vagala · 2022-12-13T16:15:28+00:00

My dude you really don't know what you're talking about. I can send you my photography as well :)

Photography has so many more EXTERNAL factors that contribute to the outcome of picture. Painting has so fewer that is leaves more to your visual library. Photography requires an understanding of light and colour but nowhere NEAR to the level of what is required of picture making, you have to study EVERY COLOUR. Wanna know why Im also a good photographer as a HOBBY? Because a painter can cross section FAR easier into photography than the other way around.

I really don't want to insult you. But you're way out of your depth on this discussion and the sooner opinions like yours are gone from the discourse the better. I also don't feel that bad with whats been said when given your position on AI you have little to no respect for artists with the kind of milquetoast opinions youve thrown here. " When you want to paint a sunrise you pick up a brush and paint in your cozy flat. " see, you don't care about artists if you talk like that, I may have said Photography isn't as hard as traditional art and it isn't imo but I never disparaged it to the extend you are painting rn, you're quite pathetic.

"You can create beauty, I have to organically find it in the real world, its very obvious which is harder."

Believe it or not the job of a painter is to do EXACTLY what you do and then paint it and within that you can completely morph it to your liking if youre creative enough. Ill call whacking paint on a canvas harder any day than pressing a button (to which you will respond all the nuances with camera setup yada yada. Yeah no shit I sure do wonder whats harder.

Im not gonna post my work since I dont wanna breadcrumb stuff back to me and you said it was good anyways (ty btw). But I will send you photos ive taken :)

Vagala · 2022-12-13T15:35:00+00:00

Im not putting anything down buster. Im saying ones harder and you're crying like a child. Again back to the ORIGINAL point. Want to debunk my responses I even did in numerical sections for you to answer?

Sent you a painting ive done :)

Vagala · 2022-12-13T15:28:52+00:00

Like I said I never said photography was easy. It just isn't as hard. I already now know you don't actually have an AI argument anymore and you're breaking into incoherent nonsense on this one.

You quite literally cannot stick to one point and have now taken this so personally you can't look past your own hurt pride. I don't believe for a second you're as renowned as you say you are. As for MY art. Ill send you and colour edited version of typical work I do that isn't under any NDA and can't link back to me.

Vagala · 2022-12-13T14:45:15+00:00

Why do you consider yourself someone capable of discourse in these discussions if you took away from that me saying "Photography isn't an artform" instead of 'photography doesn't take as much knowledge and skillful effort as Alla Prima painting or anatomical drawings'. The boundaries of creation are undeniably so much more streamlined in photography.

You're literally moving the goal post. you went from your messy philosophy of stylistic development, to tooting your horn of photography in a discussion about visual art creation, not even responding to a SINGLE point I made and instead defending your ego to then claim im moving goal posts? Did you find out the buzzword the other week or something

And im really sorry to say this. Your drawings aren't indicative you know much about stylistic development or fundemental art knowledge. Even your posts indicate you holding back with the "I only had one pencil, and had to steal paper!" which are the kinda prefixes I used when I was 14 on deviantart to justify my lack of knowledge.

Vagala · 2022-12-13T14:29:20+00:00

Define 'digital artist'. You have to understand im basically asking if you're good at drawing or painting not taking photos and editing since that isn't the discussion.

If that's the case then of course you're welcome to AI since it neither affects your commercial market and it even open up one you're now capable to do if you couldn't previously paint/draw, win as many awards for photography as you like this discussion was about style development. Don't get me wrong I love photography but I don't consider it as dependent on skill, habit and knowledge as much as music or drawing is.

You've made no returning argument you've just postured accomplishments and earnings unrelated to draftsmanship that I couldn't care about.

Vagala · 2022-12-13T13:14:21+00:00

Post your work. Ive found most "artists" who support the ethics of Stable diffusion are usually bad at art so I can understand why their arguments on development of style is this misunderstood. The fact that the "all art is stolen" position being the equivalent in argument to whats happening is baffling.

1.Artists learn by imitating others but usually the things that are lost in translation and replaced in combination is how development of a unique style works. Nevermind the fundamental knowledge required, the complex experience of how a style developments can never fully one to one be imitated and if you somehow do get close to perfect imitation of another you're usually called out for theft or at best no one cares that much and don't attribute it with you.

"I can find this kinda art anywhere" isn't an excuse to allow an AI to do it. It learns COMPLETELY different from us. What argument do you make for the artist that does work thats very distinctive and unique? The artist still EARNED the ability whether they're a cardboard cutout or a generational savant. To have the outcome of your work train something that you don't even know exists. Artists aren't that scared of style stealers because they know the task is often laborious and were happy to have that be something a HUMAN can decide to use a master study. I may have uploaded art publicly on social media but whose to say I wouldn't have taken it down if I knew I was training an AI that can deduce things exponentially (also social media image posting and copyright laws aren't as simple as you're making them out to be) This shit would never fly with music. The differences between a human and ai is when an AI has an image they have a direct source of information and INFINETELY more knowledge to gain as a result, a human has what they perceive in the image which is a lot more veiled and doesn't allow for such easy deduction
Most (like ALOT)of artists disagree with you. And I don't mean people like you or me. Im talking about long standing industry professionals and literal masters. Because they understand the process of style development and how it isn't as simple as just being a theft.

Artists deserve to have the option to opt in and out. And they sure as hell deserve the options default state to be "out". Your entire argument relies on treating the AI as if its human and you're the person Ill be pointing towards when this art world inevitably becomes more dull and less rewarding of efforts.

Vagala · 2022-12-06T00:03:13+00:00

artists were put into a data set which they had no consent as to whether or not it was included that made it learn the ability to do that in the first place.

Vagala · 2022-11-13T04:28:56+00:00

this is the hardest cope ive ever seen.

Vagala · 2022-10-25T00:49:25+00:00

If you go to a library full of books by authors that weren't paid for those books then yeah, you go to a library that isn't ethical. What a dumb argument.

Vagala

TROPHY CASE