Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#181

Post by tern »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #169
helloworld11 wrote: post #61

For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means of expression through base materials and sell them as physical works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an AI imitating much of that easily any time soon. The people or organizations to which AI-churned art ap…

>For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means of expression through base materials and sell them as physical works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an AI imitating much of that easily any time soon. Giclée prints on canvas are already very popular with…

For artists at high levels who print, the print is a part of the work and is often done with close to as much care as one puts into a painting—fine tuning colors, making small details perfect, printing on exotic materials, totally messing up the print in certain ways, painting over it, layering the print with other things, printing on fabric and hanging, stretching, modifying, or destroying the fabric etc etc.

Every aspect of making things available to humans becomes a medium, from writing code to literally just cleaning something to factory production to using "art materials."

Indeed a lot of mid-tier / long-tail work is also just straight up prints from the print shop, but OP is talking about the bespoke side of the spectrum. At the high end, fine art defines "bespoke."

https://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#182

Post by tern »

gedy wrote: post #148
dqpb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dall-e can create beautiful images of oil paintings that can be printed to canvas, much like original oil paintings are printed to canvas.

Yes, I've been doing just this, then brushing over the canvas print with thick varnish, it's quite convincing.

And then what is the story behind the work? Well: an artist made someone with DALL-E, printed it, and then printed over it to make it convincing.

Now, compare with: "this is an original master work of a historically revered artist," just to take _an_ example.

Alternatively, "my friend made this by painstakingly carving into a 200 year old block of hardwood taken from the Black Forest after the death of their father."

Certainly you can fool people, but what's the point of that?

Not to nock it, but things are what they are. Art is received as the entire experience of the object. Often a simple print is the right thing for the context, but that's not what OP is getting at.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#183

Post by ShamelessC »

Nadya wrote: post #141
hericium wrote: post #19

The problem I see here is that ML-generated art may be based on real art. While human painter may repeat style of fragments of work of other artist as homage, computer software does it more as plagiarism. This isn't much different than issues surrounding Microsoft GitHub Copilot.

So is most real art. In fact - artists have even created a dedicated terms to this kind of plagiarism: "style study" or even "reference". You can look for this term on YouTube and find a nearly endless result of artists basing art off of the style of other artists. [0] It is 100% legal for me to blatantly copy the artistic style of Ilya Kuvshinov. I could even sell such work as my own - because it would be. I'd be se…

Interesting! I haven’t really seen this discussed elsewhere.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#184

Post by lifthrasiir »

catach wrote: post #176
Animats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the original images in an AI's data set is an important element to consider when thinking of the "difficulty" here.

Yes, that 4 GB of data can't be really independently generated, but the fact that a large chunk of that effort can be compressed into 4 GB is still amazing.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#185

Post by thih9 »

gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

> The 'reverse Monet' (too lazy to link) that caused such an uproar when it was shared last week

I haven't found the HN discussion; I have found a 2017 paper [1] that had relevant examples [2].

[1]: https://junyanz.github.io/CycleGAN/

[2]: https://taesung.me/cyclegan/2017/03/25/monet-to-photo-summar...

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#186

Post by green_on_black »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #177
klez wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writing a text prompt is a fair place for that line to be drawn in my opinion. I read an article[0] on the subject the other day. At some point it said that some art tools are inherently easy to use. Part of the difference between an amateur and an actual artist is in the mastery of such tool. Think of a phone camera for example. It's extremely easy to take more than decent pictures with it. But it takes a good pho…

If you used an AI to write a million DALL-E prompts for a million different outputs - are you an artist if you pick the nicest looking output and call it art?

Yes.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#187

Post by cardanome »

ShamelessC wrote: post #143
cardanome wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a hobbyist game developer, 2022 is the year my creativity can finally fully unleashed. Prototyping games is getting so much better, this will really help indies game studies quite a bit. Will those AI generated assets replace hand crafted ones? Heck no! Have you ever tried doing AI art? What gets posted on social media are the few successful experiments. Most AI generated stuff is absolute crap. Getting anything u…

Off topic to an extent, but I would be grateful if you could share any processes for reliably producing game assets with stable diffusion.

The same person that I linked earlier has also a video on how to make game assets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXnuyVgA_Y

I am still figuring that out myself. My current project is a fantasy-themed visual novel for which creating backgrounds is super easy. You just pick a certain style, for example "by Greg Rutkowski" and put that in any prompt.

Normally you want to reuse your backgrounds as much as possible to not blow the budget but thanks to AI I can be much freer with my writing. Of course the important backgrounds should be remade by hand at some point but for prototyping they are great. Character art does not really work beyond concept art as you normally need different poses for a character and you are very specific about what you want, again not a strength of AI.

My advise would be to play to its strength, if you can: Horror works really well. Outdoor scenes work better than indoor.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#189

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

superb-owl wrote: post #173
gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

I totally agree [1]. Once all the panic dies down, I think you'll see these technologies enabling artists more than hurting them. The displacement problem isn't quite there yet. While it's a good replacement for stock photo aggregators, it's not a great replacement for commissioning an actual artist. E.g. if you want a consistent look and feel for each of your images, you'll struggle. It's only the C-listers, who cre…

> Once all the panic dies down, I think you'll see these technologies enabling artists more than hurting them.

This has happened in a different (non-AI, but "technology enables") way already with other forms of creativity. While it is true that more people become enabled, its not clear that this is overall a good thing. The benefits of more people empowered and enabled to engage in self-expression has to be traded off against the problems associated with discovery caused by their work becoming a part of the cultural milieu. People making art in private is almost certainly a good thing without limit; people making art and then making it public is not so clear - most of the work people create (even the best) is just not worth being public, but the self-limiting discrimination that this implies is in short supply in most of us. Yes, it's good you made it. No, it shouldn't be online or public, almost all the time.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#190

Post by causality0 »

catach wrote: post #176
Animats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the original images in an AI's data set is an important element to consider when thinking of the "difficulty" here.

Certainly, but those human artists were also trained on a data set their whole lives. Raise a baby with no training data set and they might produce a handprint on a wall or a rectangle of facepaint. There's a reason indigenous tribesmen don't spontaneously invent hyperrealism.
Post reply on HN