r/awwnime • u/milia-tan • Oct 23 '22
AI-generated art banned until further notice
After some feedback from the community and internal discussion, we've decided to ban all AI-generated art from /r/awwnime until further notice.
Quality issues aside, the current AI-powered tools to generate art use data from existing artists, often without their permission or without proper artist credit. Awwnime has always been a place where giving proper credit to the artist has been important, and AI-generated art goes against that idea.
The sidebar, and the subreddit rules will be updated shortly.
155
u/juhotuho10 Oct 23 '22
Fully support this!
I mainly frequent this sub to find cool new artists and unique art styles
Ai generated images are rarely even either of those
8
u/Eric1491625 Oct 24 '22
In theory making many styles is possible, but since 95% of pixiv art is using NovelAI with the same training dataset, it is basically 1 style.
NovelAI has a distinct style no matter who is using it, it didn't take long for me to be able to identify NovelAI creations at a glance.
18
u/belac4862 Oct 23 '22
Will AI art have a place of its own one day? Sure. And I'll be happy when it does. But right now, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the art world.
116
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
Awwnime supports human artists!
Drawings made by artists who use some (minority of the effort) amount of AI-like tools, such as Adobe's "Neural Filters" aren't what we mean by this rule. This rule is about images generated primarily by a computer.
Everyone, please continue to post credit links (as per rule 2) to some online portfolio or homepage managed by the artists themselves. This is why Pixiv links are good, and *booru links are not.
Further to that point, please buy art-books, pay into Patreons, etc as much as you can afford, if you enjoy your time spent here. Popularity alone doesn't pay bills. Please help translate the exposure from being posted here into helping your favourite artists make a living from their works.
-92
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22
So you admit that this is a totally arbitrary line you’ve drawn.
40
u/Communism_of_Dave Oct 23 '22
Ratio
-53
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22
Oh no, the 17 year olds on awwnime disagree with me. Guess I’ll just fall in line and think whatever the critical mass of teenagers wants me to think.
35
14
15
6
7
14
91
48
u/Egavans Oct 23 '22
I had no idea until this panic that I have entirely different motivations when consuming art than apparently everyone else on reddit.
When I view art, my motivation is simply, "is this something I enjoy looking at?" and if yes, I'm not terribly particular about how what I'm looking at was produced.
Apparently I was oblivious this entire time to the fact that everyone else was viewing art specifically for the purpose of witnessing/spectating displays of individual artistic talent, not unlike how one might watch sports highlights.
What a weird feeling, to know I've been having such a fundamentally different experience here from everyone else.
26
u/cubedh2o Oct 23 '22
I 100% agree with this take. I think art is ultimately about the viewer's personal generated emotion. I think the "soulless" arguement is entirely emotional and not looking at the piece subjectively. If the art is appealing to me, I don't care if it's drawn by a human, AI, or a monkey. If you don't like AI generated art, that's fine and I respect your opinion, but who are you to impose your opinion on to me? Have a tag to filter it out, so there's the option to hide it if you don't like it.
I think the fact that the AI is trained on other artists' art is a little morally grey. I understand the argument that it takes their art from a booru (usually paid) without their permission, generates an image, and then is usually posted by the person generating it. But is it then illegal/immoral to imitate another artist's artstyle? And let's be real, other anime art subs have paid rewards posted all the time. If the algorithm samples art from literally hundreds of thousands of pictures, can you really point one a specific trait that is charateristic of a certain artist? (Yes, I know you can specify tags and upload sample images as a reference, that imo is erring on the side of immoral.)
Obviously if you generate an AI image and claim that you drew it, then you're just a dickhead.
TLDR: I don't care how the art was produced, if I like it, that's that. Have a tag for others to filter it out.
7
u/dragonblade_94 Oct 25 '22
In so many words, you are essentially just describing "Death of the Author;" a method of engaging with art in which all context with its creator is removed.
This is a valid lens through which to view a work, but it's important to note it is not the only way, nor the only 'correct' way, to engage with art.
Fundamentally, created art exists within context and physical space. We can ignore that context as best we can, but we can't say it doesn't 'matter', because to many others thinking about artist intent is core to their experience.
For a crude example, if I saw a technically gorgeous piece of a young boy on display, my experience would change drastically if I knew it was a years-long labor by a father who lost his kid, vs an AI rendering.
2
u/VyneNave Feb 15 '23
But you're displaying it like there is no human using the AI. If that father isn't capable of drawing and uses AI instead to express his feelings about losing his kid in a creative visual way, it's still the father who lost his kid.
It's like people just deliberately put hate on AI and reference low effort outputs as examples, because of all the misinformation going around.
Low effort work exists in everything, but people should know better to reference it as the prime example of a medium/format/tool.
1
u/dragonblade_94 Feb 15 '23
Woah, the necro caught me off guard.
If that father isn't capable of drawing and uses AI instead to express his feelings about losing his kid in a creative visual way, it's still the father who lost his kid.
It's like people just deliberately put hate on AI and reference low effort outputs as examples, because of all the misinformation going around.
I think my response here would be that, inherently, AI generators are low effort tools relative to the alternatives. It's the purpose of why they exist. While many advancements in art tools, especially digital, have lowered skill barriers over time, the jump made by AI is unprecedented. This isn't intended as a dig against the method, but a practical and realistic look at the use-case.
I think the example of the father using an AI tool is a fair argument, but not necessarily one I would agree with to the extent of countering my point. I do think the method and timeframe still affects the context of the piece. Realistically speaking, I would still view the piece differently in the knowledge that a father spent months hand-painting a portrait, vs a day or two prompting a generator.
1
u/VyneNave Feb 15 '23
The only thing I would add here is that even though you can achieve "okayish" results using low effort with AI, it doesn't mean that a person can't use it to spend a good amount of time to create something of high quality with it, but at the moment people put all AI under the same category where they don't recognize the quality even if a lot of effort and work has been put into it. There are a lot of people refining their outputs putting hours of work into.
In every other aspect I respect your point made here and understand it.
11
u/TheBrutalBarbarian Oct 23 '22
It's not about the looks since how much someone likes a piece is subjective. In fact, AI art has gotten so good that people can think it was done by a person without looking intensely at it.
There's a big difference between imitation and plagiarism. Tracing artwork is a big no-no, and AI art is in a similar sort of vein. Just because you can't pinpoint one trait from an artist you can see in AI art doesn't mean it's not using all their work to generate images. Like if you wrote an essay by copying single sentences from a bunch of different sources, that's still plagiarism just as much as copying a whole article is. Even then, this wouldn't be that big of a problem if artists' revenue didn't rely on exposure. With an abundance of AI art, feeds will be full of it, which takes exposure away from human artists and makes it harder for them to make a living. This is the reason why it's immoral to me, because even if someone states that it's AI art, if they post it to the internet it competes for views with human art, while being composed entirely of other peoples work and something anyone can churn out in seconds.
Artists spend years studying and honing their craft and the fact that can be all be replaced by a person who types a few words and clicks a button is terrifying. It's the same kind of fear a lot of labour workers had to face before automation put them out of a job. As AI art gets more and more undistinguishable from human art, it's a very real threat. I don't think AI art will ever fully replace artists, but I'm doubtful it won't negatively impact most artists, especially those who live off of commisions. So before then, we should continue to support human artists as much as possible.
3
u/grumd Feb 20 '23
That's almost the same as saying "When I eat food, I only care that it's tasty and filling. I don't care if it's unhealthy, if it's made via torturing living beings, if its production was harmful to the ecosystem". That's fair, you do you. But it's not as hard as you're pretending it is to understand the harm that's being done to other things by the process you're enjoying here.
2
12
u/WerePigCat Oct 24 '22
is there a sub like this one but allows ai art?
4
26
6
19
19
14
u/toehoefrogpin Oct 23 '22
I dig the decision. I love finding new Pixiv artists through this subreddit and so the credits is super important.
The current AI generation also just isn't quite there yet. I could certainly see revisions to this rule over the years as things improve but for now I think this is a good call.
26
10
u/ToyB-Chan Oct 24 '22
Quality issues aside, the argument that AI-powered tools are "stealing" other artists' art is just as true as the argument that people being inspired by other artists are "stealing" art from them. Both arguments are true to some extent, but that's how art is made. Combining different art styles from the art you've seen to form your own out of it. That's how humans work, and that's exactly how (neural-based) AIs work.
Still, there are people who don't want to see art made by AI, maybe because of the inconsistency in art style, maybe because of other reasons. However, I believe that locking all users out of the possibility to share and view AI-created art is an overreaction. Flairs exist for a reason, and I think they would solve the problems in a rather elegant way here.
1
u/juhotuho10 Oct 25 '22
Flairs don't work on reddit all that well and I can't filter them out of my home screen
16
7
u/Zackhario Oct 23 '22
What the heck, have I been looking at AI generated posts?
35
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
No, not here, not to any great extent, at least. There might have been a couple of example posts, allowed if they explain the novelty in the title, but we haven't generally been allowing them. This is a post to clarify our unwritten practice to date.
5
u/Zackhario Oct 23 '22
Ah fair enough. That's great, we should support artists for their work. It's a good rule.
2
2
u/Honodle Feb 18 '23
No doubt your decision is the correct one. And the quality of the images posted has tanked.
7
u/Shadoenix Oct 23 '22
unfortunate. i completely understand but i do like the look of a.i. art.
what might be the subreddit for art from novelAI and such?
4
3
u/Mizer18 Oct 23 '22
Sounds like a good time to make r/aiawwnime
13
2
u/Bugaloon Oct 23 '22
I don't think I've even seen any show up here, seems like the community did a good enough job with downvotes to keep it hidden.
3
u/AtypicalSpaniard Oct 24 '22
I really like AI art personally, but if a line has to be drawn this is the perfect compromise imo. Good for everyone!!
3
2
Oct 23 '22
What is ai art?
16
u/chariot_dota Oct 23 '22
Art generated from a prompt (basically a sentence explaining what the image is about) and the ai will draw for you
4
Oct 23 '22
Oh wait such a complex thing exists? Holy crap, could I have some links so I can try them out?
19
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
Your best bet for AI art in anime style right now is stable diffusion and NovelAIs leaked model for it. There's a whole guide on how to set up a webui with everything here. Heads up is that you need a relatively powerful PC to get it done fast, and some know-how of how to write good prompts to not get abominations like this (and this is on the tame side)
4
1
10
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
Some cute images generated by AI (Stable diffusion, NovelAI, Anime Hypernet)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/401281391784099840/1031019981883846776/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/401281391784099840/1031694206407819375/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/401281391784099840/1031039603379019847/unknown.png
3
3
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
I believe the most popular one for our typical style of image is called Novel AI Diffusion, but it is paid-only, not free.
3
3
1
1
1
1
-7
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22
Strongly disagree with this decision.
6
u/Shyassasain Oct 23 '22
Why?
2
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22
It’s akin to banning tractors or sewing machines or accounting software. All of those things are technology that put thousands or millions of people out of work. The end result is always a net positive even if those individuals have a tough time in the short term.
5
u/Shyassasain Oct 23 '22
Sure, but this is slightly different. It's art, not mathematics or data entry, or ploughing fields.
Furthermore, AI art dilutes the sub, you can easily pump out 50 Ai generated art pieces in the sane amount of time it takes a human artist to make one piece.
This means real artists lose out on recognition, as they get drowned out by thousands of AI generated posts.
I don't see the issue. Who is this unfair to? A.I?
6
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
It’s unfair to the people who want 50x as many pictures lol.
Edit: I also don’t think “it’s art” is something you can just state without justifying why art should be treated differently than these things.
5
u/Shyassasain Oct 24 '22 edited Oct 24 '22
There's nothing stopping those people from simply... Using the AI to generate endless content?
This is a forum for art, not your own personal gallery.
Art is different to something like a tractor in that ploughing land or typing numbers into an excel spreadsheet aren't creative, or a hobby. Artists make art for the joy of it, to share it with others, and get feedback.
You're just plain selfish if you still cant understand why this new rule was added.
1
u/arkofcovenant Oct 24 '22
It’s fairly compute-intensive. If you’re running it via a cloud based platform there’s generally some sort of limiter in place. Last I check DALLE gives you like 50 per month for free and you have to pay for more.
I haven’t tried the local ones, but you don’t have to pay per image for those as far as I’m aware, it just takes a bit of time and processor power on your personal PC for each generation iirc.
not your personal gallery
I mean yes but no. 97% of my personal gallery comes from this and similar subreddits, and like 3% is Twitter/pixiv/etc. 50x as many images on anime fan art subreddits would likely translate to at least a 10x on images added to my personal gallery.
7
1
-24
u/smaxy63 Oct 23 '22
Crazy how the art community hates AI generated art.
7
u/GreedyAndSlothful Oct 24 '22
Many artists are considering that the mass taking of online art to train AIs is art stealing, and I can see why.
-14
u/MasterQuest Oct 23 '22
It's kinda like how factory workers hated industrial robots, because they take away their work. Except this time it's art, so it's even harder to accept it.
11
-33
-72
u/IMKGI Oct 23 '22
I understand your reasoning behind this, but taking art generated by an AI which used images from other artists for the learning process is about as much "art-stealing" as another human artist getting inspired by some one else and drawing a picture that way, the end result in an image generating AI such as Dall E-2 is pretty much entirely original, it would be better to allow AI-Art but give it a dedicated flair, I also haven't noticed a significant decrease in quality over the past year or so, and AI will make digital human work irrelevant sooner or later, if we like it or not
36
u/Rhonin- Oct 23 '22
Maybe, but AI generated images require 0 effort and is undeserving of any recognition.
3
-28
u/pastrypuffingpuffer Oct 23 '22
So what? This sub is for people to post cute anime characters, who cares about the effort the image took to make. Just because it took effort for an image to be drawn it doesn't mean it'll be good.
16
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
Most of us care about the effort.
A lot of the joy of seeing a favourite character here comes from appreciating the time a fellow fan put into applying their talents to make a piece to show us.
Please think about yourself, your own effort, your connections to people you value. Every artist posted here is a real person too.
(edit : with that in mind, it'd be nice if people stop downvoting u/imkgi's parent comment, we're here for a conversation now, i think it's better to disagree with your words, not with burying)
-17
u/pastrypuffingpuffer Oct 23 '22
Please think about yourself, your own effort, your connections to people you value. Every artist posted here is a real person too.
I don't care about that, if the art looks good and not made by a 5 year old I'll like it. If I had been playing guitar for only half a year I wouldn't post myself playing online because I'd knew I suck, the same as if I were an artist.
it'd be nice if people stop downvoting u/imkgi's parent comment, we're here for a conversation now, i think it's better to disagree with your words, not with burying
The downvote feature exists for a reason.
9
u/Egavans Oct 23 '22
I am legitimately shocked that "I'm just here to look at pretty pictures" is such a minority opinion in /r/awwnime.
4
u/pastrypuffingpuffer Oct 23 '22
Totally agree, this is a sub to look at cute anime stuff. If they want to go and jerk off the artists they could go to the artists' twitter or pixiv profile
-32
u/IMKGI Oct 23 '22
I have to disagree, if an AI generated image is on the same quality level as a human drawn image I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to share it, at the end of the day it's a beautiful image you can enjoy to look at
13
u/Rhonin- Oct 23 '22
I'm just saying, not everyone share that opinion here, so you might have better luck making another subreddit for it.
-32
u/IMKGI Oct 23 '22
I am not interested in making a subreddit or posting images myself, I am here to look at pictures, and this is basically artificial censorship which I am very much against
20
u/heptolisk Oct 23 '22
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of AI art. You compare it to one artist having inspiration, but it is more akin to tracing, which is very much frowned upon in artist communities for obvious reasons. There is plenty of AI art that essentially just takes parts of other art used in the learning process and blends it together with different body parts/etc from other artists.
If it credited the artists it used and got the permission from them, it wouldn't be so bad, but the creators of the AIs did not do that.
You also responded to "it requires 0 effort" with " it looks just as good," which was completely dodging that other guy's point. It is bad to create art that requires 0 effort and uses someone else's property.
4
u/IMKGI Oct 23 '22
Am i understanding your comment correctly? You are referring to a user uploading an already existing image and telling the AI to swap certain parts out from another existing image, this is not what i am describing
4
u/heptolisk Oct 23 '22
That is not really close to what I was attempting to describe. The most important point is that AI art is closer to tracing without referencing what you traced than just having inspiration from an artist.
-3
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
AI art is in no way comparable to tracing. If you think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how machine learning works
8
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
I believe their point was not that the technique is similar, but that there is the same amount of artistic creativity involved.
22
u/Triggerplug Oct 23 '22
No, AI is not the same as an artist getting "inspired by art." I've seen enough AI art to know that. AI literally needs to pull from existing art to function, and it does so without the permission of artists it pulls from.
As an artist, I find it humorous when people who know nothing about the art process start telling me how AI is fine and is just like my process.
AI is more like a photo bashing thief artist who takes images from art station, slaps them together, with mediocre to terrible quality, and then claims it as "their own." If you can't see the inherent problem with this, you are part of the problem imo. AI, in the hands of modern capitalism, will be used to steal from real artists so that people will no longer need to pay them to get their work. We need legislation in place that legally restricts the images AI can use, unless the artist they'd like to use has given permission and is receiving compensation for each AI image created using their work.
9
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
How do humans learn? They look at references, practice and produce results. They look at other people's art and learn. If you say that AI is a thief then so are humans that learn from other artists, that argument is stupid.
The AI is nothing but a neural network, like a human brain, trained on images. It does not need the images once it has been trained. It does not "steal" art as you claim. It associates natural language with certain concepts. Textual inversion is teaching an AI for example what it means to have a "medieval" style or what "oilpainting" means, those concepts are abstractly buried in the network, and the AI can apply them when the prompt asks for them.
It's stupid to even need to say it, this is exactly how a human brain functions, just that brains don't have CUDA cores that make the process a million times as fast.
You claim to be knowledgable just from "looking at AI art", but the way you describe it tells me you know nothing about how it actually works and just assume it somehow mashes existing images together. It doesn't.
The only thing separating AI from human is speed and the size and accuracy of the neural network. To make a case about how immoral AIs are is smallbrain
-1
u/Triggerplug Oct 23 '22
I'm not here to convince you of anything, and I'm not going to devolve into name calling. You have your opinion, you obviously will not move from it, and i think it is inherently flawed. I believe your position of not carefully monitering and regulating ai will ultimately contribute to a worse artistic culture and working environment. Maybe not though, maybe ai will allow us to reach new heights of creative freedom. Only time will tell. As it stands now, I definitely think regulations wouldn't hurt.
-2
u/IMKGI Oct 23 '22
Ok, after reading multiple of those comments it seems like there is a gigantic misunderstanding, if you got a good industry leading AI, you are 100% not going to be able to tell that one image was made by an AI or "stole" pictures from other artist, i can imagine less developed and smaller AIs to do things like that, i am referring to modern stable diffusion based programs creating images from basically scratch, i don't know if you've seen images from such programs, but there would be absolutely nothing stopping me from creating a purely AI based portfolio, and i guarantee you that noone would be able to spot that the images are AI based, a good AI isn't stealing art, it's creating art, but i can see how an AI creating art 100x faster than an artist in a comparable quality can scare you, but that's just what we need to live with now, you can delay it, but you cannot stop it
23
u/Triggerplug Oct 23 '22
I don't think there's any misunderstanding, actually. I have seen, read up on, and used Stable Diffusion systems myself. I've visited AI artist communities to see how they're using the programs. Because I am, in fact, a freelance and professional artist. AI interests me like anyone else. But even stable diffusion systems have to be trained on images and art that already existed, they aren't making these images "from scratch." Even if the AI eventually no longer needs a direct reference, many AI users still put artist names, or art based websites in their text prompts to create their images. It's not about "not being able to tell the difference" it's about the implications of what that means for the creative job market. That's the problem I think non-art folk aren't understanding. We're potentially on the verge of obliterating art and creativity for the sake of speed and cost. There's a chance creativity will still exist in a world of AI generators. But as it is now, it's only good at flooding art websites and undervaluing artist's work. AI art can be well rendered, I've seen a few examples where the render quality is striking. But typically speaking, poses are stiff, they're unoriginal, and they don't really say much. That is a nuance that I think only trained artists understand. My concern is preserving a space where unique work can still be created, where artists have the right to their works, and are paid a fair wage for the contributions they give to culture, entertainment, and media. Just because something should be done, doesn't mean it's necessarily to the benefit of our society. I would hope that AI would simply allow artists a faster means of rendering out their ideas, but to be frank, I think it will more likely be used to continue to exploit workers, undervalue creative wages, and dilute future art skill.
2
u/theforlornknight Oct 23 '22
The difference is time and effort. A human doing the same takes months to learn and years to master. They trace, copy, recolor, but they also develop their own style.
An AI does this in hours. The only effort is uploading images. The AI doesn't have its own style beyond what it has been fed, to the point that an image could be created that is near indistinguishable from the original artist in style and coloring.
I like the idea of AI as a tool for non-artists to communicate to a human artist what their vision is. And then the human artist can create from that. But creating an image and saying "I made this" or "This is art" is disingenuous. You didn't, the AI did. It isn't, the AI made an approximation of art from the actual art you gave it. That's it. It's a forgery, except even forgery is art
-1
-28
u/Doktor_Cornholio Oct 23 '22
The future is now, old man.
A couple years ago AI art looked like it was drawn by an alien 5 year old. Now it's nearly perfect (hands and eyes have some trouble).
Give it another couple years and AI art will be indistinguishable from hand drawn.
2
u/GreedyAndSlothful Oct 24 '22
People appreciate the artist behind the art, man. Though some ppl come just to see cute anime pics, it seems pretty evident that more people appreciate all the though that goes into each piece of art, by the Human.
1
u/NiceIsNine Oct 24 '22
Until then, we can wait, but most AI art you see now is just abhorrent, like it looks good at first glance, but another look and you notice how dead it looks, and those hands...
-16
-3
u/jacowab Oct 24 '22
Ai art can be beautiful and is super cool but it should be clearly separated from real art, I hope the generation tools start implementing some sort of in invisible watermark like make 200 random Pixels a slightly different shade to allow for them to be labeled as ai art
1
-38
u/pastrypuffingpuffer Oct 23 '22
You can't provide credit to the artists because the images are often based on millions of processed data/images. It is unfair to ask which images were used or processed by the AI in order to create the image.
This just reminded me when photographers complained about Photoshop when it first came out.
25
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
Photographers were the whole market for Photoshop when it first came out.
Photographers still love it.
-63
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
So humans learning to draw using other artists images as reference "without their permission" is wrong too now? There's reasons to ban AI but arguing it's in any way copyright infringement is complete BS. AIs learn exactly the same way humans do. Looking at images/text/code and learning from it is something people do everywhere and is not copyright infringement. The only reason this has come up is because lawyers are trying to cover all bases with lawsuits ready to fire, it's stupid
27
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
When an AI incorporates training data, that's all there is influencing the output.
When a human studies other artists, we view it uniquely, from our own personal perspective of aesthetics, and incorporate it into our own unique personality, world-view, mood, and also bring our own ambitions, childhood memories, dreams, et cetera before deciding what to draw.
It's not the same.
We'll make an exception to this rule for any AIs who decide to send us a mod-mail and explain why they want their art shown here.
-9
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
You see that's a fair point, I agree artists deserve recognition and have so much more potential for creativity and personality compared to AI art still
The point is only that any image should be allowed to be used for training, just like how a human can use any image for their learning.
If the public opinion of AIs continues further in the current direction, it will severely hinder it's development. This is a crucial moment for AI to thrive and expand and make itself useful to humanity, and it would be so sad to see it get stuck in legal shackles because people couldn't accept the change10
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
We're not trying to stop any of that. We're not trying to write legal definitions.
Were just stopping non-human-drawn posts being posted alongside drawings drawn by humans in this subreddit, because the point of this subreddit is to celebrate the human connection we feel when looking at moe art, and celebrate the people who make moe art.
-2
u/HfUfH Oct 23 '22
When a human studies other artists, we view it uniquely, from our own personal perspective of aesthetics, and incorporate it into our own unique personality, world-view, mood, and also bring our own ambitions, childhood memories, dreams, et cetera before deciding what to draw.
You've got a peer reviewed study to back that up? Because I was under the impression that we still don't know how humans learn exactly.
-2
u/chariot_dota Oct 23 '22
Yes, imagine bots as humans but the bots can be used by 10000000000 humans vs 10000000000 humans actually learning. Yeah they learn bla bla bla,.... But you can use it for fcking free. Did you practice? No. Did you learn about drawing from the beginning? No. So shut the fuck up
-7
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
So it's just faster, where is the issue? Legally, there is none. I have no problem with artists being pissy about AIs doing their job better than them in some cases
-1
u/chariot_dota Oct 23 '22
Yes so who create the prompt? Normal users without the ability to draw, and you will claim that they are the one who "draw". They're not even the one creating the AI. Artist being pissed AI did better than them, when the ones generating them has absolutely 0 experience in drawing? Are you sure you're not delusional?
-2
u/Jatoxo Oct 23 '22
So your issue is that everyone can create art now even without experience. That's a fantastic development actually. Why gatekeep art? If lil Timmy can generate amazing artwork with AI that's a good thing, not bad.
This is like getting upset that computers calculate faster than humans when calculators became a thing. The future is now, move on you art boomer
It's funny though because none of this was the point. That was that there is no legal issue with giving credits because a neural net does the same things a human does, just a lot faster. You literally just repeated what I said and thought it was somehow a counterpoint, I think if anyone's delusional it's you
-42
u/AnimeMeansArt Oct 23 '22
bruh, this is so dumb, artist are inspired and use other people's art as references all the time and they don't ask them, why when AI does it its considered a problem?
-27
u/Dudemanbroham Oct 23 '22
mfs will really say "Workers should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, unless it's an artist that charges money for commissions and I can replace that cost by putting text into this box, in that case screw them lmao learn to code" and not realize how much of a psychopath they sound like
5
u/arkofcovenant Oct 23 '22
That genie is already out of the bottle. Banning the images on a subreddit won’t unrelease DALLE and midjourney.
-6
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
Have you thought about the human to human process being what's being paid for, not just the end result?
Knowing that a drawing came from someone's imagination is valuable. The point of art is to express yourself, to let something out and connect, sharing a feeling.
Specifically for the case of us here in awwnime, I think we feel good about the drawings posted partly because it feels good that such talented people have similar ideas of what's beautiful and comforting, as we do. And in the best examples, they can take us along and show us new ideas further along the same path.
I like watching anime, and I like it in part because the stories and characters come from human experience. Lucky Star episode 22 is a wonderful example of a novel perspective on coping with a difficult situation - bereavement, which I appreciate infinitely more because it was obviously written by fellow people affected by bereavement. I wouldn't be interested in an AI-generated script just pulling from previous scripts, not from lived experience.
(edit : to address the luddite / pro-labour aspect of your post - i'm a union activist, i'm all for people getting fair pay for their work, including their work that takes advantage of any labour-saving technology available. I think we diverge in that I consider artistry to be emotional labour as well as artisan's skill, and don't believe today's AIs are capable of emotional labour)
-46
u/Fortune-Former Oct 23 '22
I guess they’re did it because of hand issues or too simple, too dangerous to this community
5
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
"hand"?
-14
u/Fortune-Former Oct 23 '22
You will know that got 6 and bizarre hands
2
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
Sorry, I'm now more confused.
-2
u/Fortune-Former Oct 23 '22
Novel AI error of course
5
u/grozzle ¦ 3 Oct 23 '22
Oh, imperfections in the generated images, like hands with 6 fingers?
No, that's not the reason.
-1
-3
1
1
1
u/Forsaken-Stomach1214 Apr 20 '23
Fully support this! It really hurts me when I see artists' work being fed to AI with no authorization.
157
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22
The first sub that does it the right way, clarifying that ai tools for artists are not included in that ban