Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 5 Next >>
Topic: AI Art Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7682
Posted: 25 June 2023 at 5:29pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

I actually agree. Artists seem to have been involved in coming up with
concepts & designs. An AI seems to have pulled all that together. So people
were still involved in the creation.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14825
Posted: 25 June 2023 at 6:04pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I actually agree. Artists seem to have been involved in coming up with concepts & designs. An AI seems to have pulled all that together. So people were still involved in the creation.

———

Of course people are involved in the creation. An AI is not going to spit that out on its own. That’s not the issue here. 

The issue is that building generative AI requires training data, which in terms of art includes artwork combed from the internet by artists who did not intend for it to be used for that purpose. 

Some of the questions are:

- What are the ethics of creating an AI from the work of people who did not consent to their work being used in that manner?
- What are the ethics of a company profiting off such an AI?
- What are the ethics of a company using an AI built off of someone else’s work to create their own works in that style to avoid hiring that artist?
- What are the ethics of using AI to create something in the style of an artist who might find that creation morally objectionable?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3202
Posted: 25 June 2023 at 8:37pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

My boss put the equation pretty succinctly: professional creatives aren’t going to be replaced by AI, we’re going to be replaced by the people who know how to use AI.

I have something of a project lull in July, and I’m definitely going to dig in to the new AI tools in Photoshop.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2195
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 7:11am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

I think all digital artists should learn to use AI tools, far from taking their jobs, it should make them easier and like CG, make them capable of producing high-difficulty images in a massively shorter period of time.   Considering some of the abominations produced by non-artists using these tools, I don't think we have too much to fear from their use. 

That said, I hope no one is arguing it's ok for these companies to be stealing artwork or photos, because they are. Every one of the big Generative AI houses uses images as part of their business that they don't have permission to have--just nabbed off the internet. Because a Neural Net is a complex combination of literally all the images in their possession, the output is affected by all the images simultaneously.  Lawsuits from copyright holders are in progress because of this.  Here's a realistic AI picture of a horse.  Link.  Where do you suppose it got the training data?

The only reason you can tell Stable Diffusion to make something "in the style of Ralph McQuarrie" is because it has literal image files of McQuarrie art in it's possession it's using to directly drive the software.  I'm pretty sure Lucasfilm/Disney thinks it owns that stuff.  If the AI didn't have it as source material, it literally couldn't do what was asked.  If these companies didn't have enormous numbers of images tagged "AIRPLANE", they could not make you any pictures of airplanes that it recombobulates to fit your request.

There are many possible abuses of this technology, due to it's enormous power, more than Michael enumerated above. Keeping these companies from stealing copyrighted material would a good place to start. Any images they use should either be in the Public Domain, donated, or paid for/licensed from consenting creators.  I hope no one thinks this is too much to ask?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132580
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 11:44am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

When I started using 3D models for sets, props and vehicles (the first being the time machine in OMAC) there were many readers who accused me of “cheating”. Far from appreciating the effort that went into creating the models, they assumed I just typed “1940s Batmobile” and let the computer do the work.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 12:23pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

AI art certainly gets closer to the concept of “cheating” that many people envision. With enough reference you could type “Studebaker Batmobile” or “1940’s Batmobile” into an AI art program and get something useful. I understand the pushback from the artist community to restrict or remove the input side of this equation, but as many noted the creativity required to make something new, fresh, ground breaking, etc. comes from the artists, not the AI. I might be wrong, but  I don’t think AI is going to come up with a new artistic style like pointillism, expressionism or surrealism without first being coached by creative humans. I think it is another tool and will only squeeze out the people that cannot create from imagination.

Edited by Eric Ladd on 26 June 2023 at 12:23pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Oliver Denker
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 August 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 216
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

That's the AI result I got from typing in "1940s bat mobile"...

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132580
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Good designs, but they don’t really say “1940s” to me.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

No Studebaker love? =) 

I see AI art being leveraged best to provide inspiration to artists. To view what AI spits out as a “final draft” is the problem.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3202
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 2:24pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

There's a certain gatekeeper mentality that crops up among those who have worked and trained in various media over the years, and it happens like clockwork any time a new process is introduced.  I'm sure typesetters were incensed by the advent of desktop publishing, and I'm fairly sure that there were plenty among them that mistook their (justified!) fear at being replaced with a disdain for the newer methods - that required 100% less scissoring, rubber cement, and photostats - as somehow being lesser or cheating or what have you.

It's tough, no doubt.  Loss of job stability is an unpleasant feeling, and there are those who simply cannot make the leap to learn the new tools.  When I was younger, I worked at the local Barnes & Noble; there, in the Business section, was a very popular book called 'Who Moved My Cheese'.  These days, on the north side of fifty and staring down a major paradigm and tool shift in my own line of work, I frequently ask myself, "WHY do they have to keep MOVING the cheese?"
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14825
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply


 QUOTE:
I might be wrong, but  I don’t think AI is going to come up with a new artistic style like pointillism, expressionism or surrealism without first being coached by creative humans.


Given how quickly AI has advanced in just the last year and will continue to advance, I'm willing to bet that you are wrong.


 QUOTE:
There's a certain gatekeeper mentality that crops up among those who have worked and trained in various media over the years, and it happens like clockwork any time a new process is introduced.  I'm sure typesetters were incensed by the advent of desktop publishing, and I'm fairly sure that there were plenty among them that mistook their (justified!) fear at being replaced with a disdain for the newer methods - that required 100% less scissoring, rubber cement, and photostats - as somehow being lesser or cheating or what have you.


People keep comparing AI to movable type or cars, while people in tech—both advocates and critics—keep comparing AI to The Manhattan Project. I don't think that latter comparison is overwrought.


Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
Posted: 26 June 2023 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Michael, your statements are regarding Artificial Intelligence as a technology where Dave’s and my comments are specific to AI art. For now, there is a difference between the two designations. As I understand it, generating art leverages a small part within the scope of Artificial Intelligence as a technology. The Manhattan Project comparison to AI art generation falls short by quite a distance, but is perhaps appropriate for machine intelligence and reason.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 5 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login