"Now enter the AI which can do digital art. Its doing the same thing as the average digital artist, which is to just produce mindless art which it can do much faster and often better. That drops digital arts value to a rock IMO."
This last point is so very true IMHO - and that's probably the saddest part about the whole AI debacle. Digital illustrative art has been around for about 20 years now (in the sense of Painter and Photoshop being used for illustrative painting), yet is seems to have largely failed at even being aknowledged by the general public outside of pop nerdoms. But it took only one year for "it looks like AI" to become a thing. Even actors and movie enthousiasts are mixing up CG avatars and AI imagery, lumping everything digital into the same basket ...
I agree largely with what your saying on the blog although there are few things I don't.
It pollutes the internet with an endless flood of content devoid of feeling. Worthless and uninteresting because there was no human emotion, no struggle, and no sacrifice to give it meaning. But at the same time crowding out and devaluing human content by its sheer quantity and over-the-top flashiness.
Lets not kid ourselves here and pretend like we had a paradise before AI came out. Go to social media websites, Artstation, Youtube, DeviantArt especially, etc. Can you honestly say those places weren't already flooded with an endless amount of content devoid of feeling, worthless and uninteresting? This an inherent issue of allowing anyone and everyone to post their work online.
The further AI develops and the harder it is to distinguish it from human-created content the higher the potential will be for misusing it to completely automate large parts of the creative process.
For digital art yes. Eventually AI will completely automate the whole thing, not just large parts.
Crag Mullins even pointed this out in a Bobby Chiu interview where he mentioned computer programmers were geniuses for figuring out a way that lets you mimic art on a computer using software. However he one day mused about a terrifying prospect of....what if the programmers could simply build a program that can generate the art for you and remove the human out of the equation entirely? He predicted this years ago before AI art became a thing and it seems his fears were in fact well founded.
This is just an inherent issue of anything digital. If a human made it on a computer, it can be automated by the AI.
@ModBlue The majority of human art has always been generic or of low quality. The problem is that AI images can be generated in seconds and have high quality (colors, composition etc). Arguably much higher quality than those mediocre human artworks. As such they trend on Pinterest etc, while those human artworks did not. Also, AI tends to use high contrast, exaggerated colors, muscles etc. Human art feels 'soft' or 'pale' next to the AI images. That does not mean good human art is worse, it just means that they are incompatible to be displayed next to each other.
Some art.. indeed lacks some craftmanship.. but still someone may find it appealing.. up to the scribblings of someones own children.. ..so also some "pieces of a.." may find someone who want to pay for it.. So the special use of AI in generating images increases the occurence of "general art products" which was produced by people before.. it might even produce more "realistic" images.. but then this also might be an opportunity to make more "artistic styled" art or "better" compositions in photos.. According to AI images this even might make artists more artistic in the future and avert the "simpler daily bread producing work"..
But of course being not in such position makes talk easy
@ModBlue The majority of human art has always been generic or of low quality. The problem is that AI images can be generated in seconds and have high quality (colors, composition etc). Arguably much higher quality than those mediocre human artworks. As such they trend on Pinterest etc, while those human artworks did not. Also, AI tends to use high contrast, exaggerated colors, muscles etc. Human art feels 'soft' or 'pale' next to the AI images. That does not mean good human art is worse, it just means that they are incompatible to be displayed next to each other.
Just because the AI can generate more generic art at a faster pace doesn't make it a problem. If anything that means there will be less human art, which increases human art rarity and will allow for them to stand out better.
first one I found was Under Artists, 908* David Fletcher, game artist at Sony Playstation Edit: * slight number correction, copied the lists out to do quicker searches and the numbering got changed.
Well there are basically two layers to this : at the lowest level, there are the billions of images and artists (+ all the relevant metadata) that got scraped and potentially given some so-called "aesthetic rating" in Laion5B - all done and used without consent. A simply query through HaveIBeenTrained using any random image show the mind-boggling extent of the theft. If you've hosted your art online using a popular portfolio/art community website and your images got some amount of traffic, they're in there.
And then on top of that there are these lists which I believe are partly automated and partly manually curated, probably to steer the training further. This has been well-known for a while, this is only re-surfacing now because of it being part of one of the lawsuits.
This is just another demonstration of how this tech is ethically rotten to the core and has always been. Because even though "prompt filters" are implemented (like for instance not being able to type in "Ghibli"), the data is still there and used. The only fair outcome being the complete destruction of the model.
And furthermore, it shows once more that the devs claiming that "they can't possibly track and compensate everyone" has been BS from the start. It was always BS since everyone can track the source of any artwork in a matter of seconds or minute - they just never *wanted* to do it. It's just all the more self-evident know that these lists are becoming common knowledge.
- - - - -
As for the "core" stuff : basically in the last few years adding "-core" to various terms has been a popular way for terminally online people to describe this or that visual style. Cottage-core, War-core, and so on. It's moronic indeed, but a perfectly logical thing to do for people who are caught in the "attention economy" (either as content-creator or customers). So it somewhat logically follows that when curating a list and defining prompting terms some random combos of "-core" would be used ... or perhaps even procedurally generated.
It's hilarious though Pretty much a self-fulfilling loop of derivative content, feeding on itself ...
(Also saying "this art was created by humans" is kinda gross. >If it had been created by humans< you'd really thing they'd credit the artist or team that worked on it.)
wow, really, MTG said that steampunk background art was human made? That's nuuutss
I've seen some art that left me scratching my head as to whether or not it was human or AI, but they're taking the piss on this one. Maybe they meant human prompt generated? lol
Thanks for sharing, To be fair they didn't use it in their cards as far as we know, but by doing this they certainly hurt their credibility. I feel that unless the ethical and copyright considerations are addressed, AI use is very condemnable, though I can see some creativity in its use, for example by this photographer friend, (NSFW) https://www.instagram.com/oswaldfitchjapan/?hl=en
well that is horrible, also...am i understanding this correct:
As a token of my gratitude I would love to give you a 50% discount code on every reference pack in my STORE. It is valid until the end of this Sunday. Enjoy
People are selling others art in "their stores" on artstation and saying 50% off from packing it together in a package? confused about this one but i think its that...cause it blatantly states it, zero portfolio. (i do not really want a response to this more sharing this, new/old? situation,but then again i do want one if i am mistaken somehow, it reads really strangely, free money just copy save pack post...?)
@iam717 Hm, as I see it, the person promotes their original reference packs in a blog post, by showing artworks from others that made use of their packs. Maybe they have permission by the artists? Briefly looking at some of the packs, doesn't look to me like artworks from others were re-packaged or consist of AI-generated content. That's why I don't believe what the person does is related to the topic of this thread (AI art). But happy to be corrected if I missed something
Yeah, after a while of thinking, i thought something similar, though the goal of the topic was to make it look as if they never took every piece of imagery from the net and the "alien" made it all it's self & get away with it...
If i have too or if a mod wants too they could remove the wordings and put doesn't apply or something, kind of didn't want to investigate it to much, takes too much time as it is dealing with this "new" b.s. i'd rather not give to the situation, kinda of sick bout hearing it and being reminded of it.(especially on p.c.)
Does this sound like a law that can become "reality" ?
Does this sound like a law that can become "reality" ?
Terms
Artificial Intelligence, &/or A.I. (An eye or any variation of
intelligence besides free will,free thinking human intelligence,
thereof, under the law of the land and/or any additional protective laws
therein) is hereby now referred to as, "it/alien".
It is
thievery to me, whomever made it, used it and whomever was involved with
it should be sued, arrested, banned and locked up till the end of time.
In
this hypothetical possibility, i would also add a in perpetuity law
that can not ever become void, overwritten, changed nor added to, that
states, if you implement, act on, construct, conspire via communications
of any kind with anyone even yourself, to implement such imitations
and/or systems manually or in automation, you void, forfeit, nullify
your life (existence) and would be found guilty of crimes against,
Geneva Conventions & human rights, of Humanities, "free thinking
creative expression", i.e. creativity, art and/or self expression, life,
intelligence and the vessel's that they inhabit, has already been made,
you(nor anyone,ever) are NOT needed to attempt to recreate it
whatsoever, via imitating it and/or alter it in anyway.
Any
actions that stagnates, pauses, and/or hinders, causes distress in
anyway, in any meaning of the terms, in attempts to circumvent,
sustainment of, employment opportunities and/or the betterment of one's
life in anyway, people and/or person/s, the minorities and/or majority,
your life (existence) is here by forfeit, void & nullified, to be
disposed of, immediately, by military tribunals and/or any members of
the public, upon verification of identity and guilt only, whether or not
having changed identity and/or having had surgery/s or dental changes
to circumvent dispatching, by any means necessary, upon sight, at their
discretion.
Any being/s found guilty of contributing to
circumvention and/or hindrances no matter the number via any means, are
automatically accomplices & held equal in kind manner to the
stipulations of this law.
The only one immune from this would be,
The creator of all things, "themself", which they would have to prove
by creating something out of nothing, with nothing but themself, outside
of themself, that has never been viewed throughout eternity by human
eyes, apart from natural occurrences, in an attempt to fool lesser
minds, in-front of "everyone", then they could alter these conditions
and/or dispute to remove them, via trial/counsel.
(this was fun, i feel better, lawyers did i do well...?.) (too much?)
fixed/final.
The main goal is to get the Youth to be comfortable with and they're eating it up, so that their b.s. can continue. Which in the end is just restrictions and keeping people on the hamster wheel, 'their system'.
All the best, with all this stuff, if i have a choice to return to this place i kind of would rather not. (which is also the goal of the being behind the curtain.)
One does not win no matter what they choose. If i could delete my posts i would but we aren't allowed to for whatever reason.
(to much to fix this post i tried, the editing is all screwed up and not functioning for me.)
Has anyone tried Nightshade yet? I don't have high hopes, but I'm giving it a go for shits n giggles & to see what the end result looks like. I've also been looking into what r/stablediffusion has to say about it. Warning; there are some (not all) people in there that sound like incels, but with artists instead of women; it's the only way I can describe it. Weird, sad people lol
I experimented with some recent work of mine. There seems to be a lot of artifacting visible to the naked eye. Currently I'm not very impressed, perhaps the settings need adjusting.
Has anyone tried Nightshade yet? I don't have high hopes, but I'm giving it a go for shits n giggles & to see what the end result looks like. I've also been looking into what r/stablediffusion has to say about it. Warning; there are some (not all) people in there that sound like incels, but with artists instead of women; it's the only way I can describe it. Weird, sad people lol
I experimented with some recent work of mine. There seems to be a lot of artifacting visible to the naked eye. Currently I'm not very impressed, perhaps the settings need adjusting.
Between one image and the other, some nuances are lost, I suppose the software will improve over time but it's also nothing that can't be assumed in many portfolios. Besides Nightshade, there are other software options that I haven't tried yet. When I have enough time to analyze them thoroughly, I will experiment with them. Glaze Kin ART
How much time do we have left to have the real possibility of earning income and being able to continue working in CGI, video games, design, and any other trade where the creative process of 2D/3D/texturing is involved?
I have discovered some tools that frighten me and add to the list of things that threaten our work and human integrity.
I am saddened by the direction humanity is taking; society is becoming increasingly lazy and consequently dumber and easier to manipulate/deceive. The possibility that current and future generations will unlearn all the skills that make us human is becoming more real considering recent events in human history.
With the creation of the digital calculator, we have lost the ability to mentally calculate small mathematical operations that were once easy for us; now calculators do the work for us, and our brains atrophy from lack of use. We hardly know how to write using a pen and paper anymore; our handwriting is becoming increasingly illegible, and it's very difficult for us to avoid spelling mistakes without the help of a word processor and keyboard.
Now we are truly on the path to relinquishing fundamental human skills. The basic structure of a text is in danger; now, with a simple list, an AI can generate a text effortlessly and easy to understand, we are on our way to being replaced by machines that use art without the consent of talented real artists. It is possible that the fundamental bases of art will cease to be learned, and we will sink into a world where mediocrity is the pinnacle of creation (any attempt at "art" presented by AI will never have human intention or the artist's vision).
Not to mention the psychological consequences that a world where human purposes no longer have real value will have on us, a world where motivation for study will be lost due to human incompetence in the face of these machines. At least the hope for a categorization of REAL art vs FASTART for any kind of creative medium helps to think about these issues.
To be fair, I believe that the intellectual property of anything generated by AI (legally) should belong to the software that generates it and not to the person who writes the prompt while sitting on the toilet.
As a society, we have to find a balance and prevent human art from falling into a pit, avoid the scenario where everything is at the distance of a prompt; if everyone can do something automatically, it loses all value. We have to maintain hope for humanity.
i think greater technology will increase the gap of inequality, both economically and intellectually.
for people who already have some means, it can help them increase their means. for people without, it takes away some options they had. I think it will increase demand for something like UBI or a bloody revolution. With incompetent, corrupt governments and rapid increase of global temperature, i think violence and revolution is more likely than UBI and blissfully ignorant technological utopia. Then nobody is going to care about art for a long time, or maybe ever again. If technological utopia, then art is the only thing anybody cares about, even though it is fundamentally meaningless. Just as birds chirping their songs is.
people who have been complacent in either becoming independent or building social networks will suffer but that is true since the beginning of time. You either do for tribe and tribe does for you, or you make it on your own. The trouble is that people have been tricked by psychopaths into thinking that their labor made them valued member of tribe, but really there is no tribe. pretty much most of the "developed" world, people compete against each other and believe that this is the cause of their material luxuries. But once the job doesn't need you, you can starve on the streets, and who is going to care? Nobody unless you have a tribe.
I did hear from colleagues at a number of studios, that they have started to incoporate AI tools like stable diffusion and midjourney into their pipelines.
There is high priority in creating more proprietary AI tools in studio and this approach is influencing their retention policy when it comes to concept artists. Would it be a good idea to include the use of AI tools in concept art portfolios? The job listings do not openly state that using AI tools is a requirement and most of the concept artists seem to be against AI use publicly, though they are actively encouraged to use the tools at the workplace.
For 3D modeling, there's mixed consensus on using AI art as reference, though AI is being used at studios to create mood boards and concept art sheets that are then referenced and cleaned up by concept artists. There is emphasis on using it for texturing, so far its not at a level where it can compare with internal libraries and outsourcer rates. One reason that AI tool usage is encouraged is because it looks good to investors who don't really care too much about the actual outcome but are aware of the investments made into AI, hence when a studio endorses it during its earnings reports, they are likely to remain onboard and invest more. I'm not too sure if the studios care about the outcome of AI use either, its too early to tell.
I wouldn't use AI in a portfolio, being good at prompts is not a useful skill.
Interestingly the studios are largely seeing it as a good skill to have (if you can actually even call it a skill) But the employees aren't supposed to talk about this openly, or atleast not make their opinions on its use indicative of the stance of the studio. This is largely because of the bad press AI has been receiving because of unethical use of copyrighted content. I do wish I could list the studios, though I can say its pretty much every AAA studio that is reliant on investor funding.
It doesn't make sense to publish in a portfolio that we are good at AI. The "real value" of AI is that you don't need to know anything to use them, they are designed for anyone to be able to request things. The idea that you need to study to use them is a result of marketing, AIBros, and internet AI courses/scams. Publishing in a portfolio that we are good at AI is equivalent to saying that we know how to search for references on Google or that we know how to download assets from Megascans.
I keep seeing Ai 3D tools popping up but this one caught my attention, full PBR work flow, janky but definitely more refinded then the last time I looked.
I keep seeing Ai 3D tools popping up but this one caught my attention, full PBR work flow, janky but definitely more refinded then the last time I looked.
What thoughts do you have when you see this? Do you see jobs under a real threat, or are we just going to embrace this technology as an assistant?
The truth is, I feel increasingly threatened, and my motivation is decreasing. I would like to know the opinion of the community, to know if it's still worth investing hours in Blender, spending my money on Substance, and on training to improve in my work.
I don't think people will appreciate generated art once it's no longer the cool new thing and they have gotten thoroughly used to the look. It'll probably get about as old as the 2015-or-thereabouts early attempts with Google's deep dream dalmatians. You wouldn't buy a print of that stuff nowadays, would you?
Wouldn't be surprised if in a few years you'll have to prove that you made an image yourself as opposed to simply having it generated.
I keep seeing Ai 3D tools popping up but this one caught my attention, full PBR work flow, janky but definitely more refinded then the last time I looked.
What thoughts do you have when you see this? Do you see jobs under a real threat, or are we just going to embrace this technology as an assistant?
The truth is, I feel increasingly threatened, and my motivation is decreasing. I would like to know the opinion of the community, to know if it's still worth investing hours in Blender, spending my money on Substance, and on training to improve in my work.
You'd be surprised how often game artists have been scared of technology making their skillset worthless, but it never ends up being the case.
Having to learn how to use normal maps, the rise of sculpting apps, photogrammetry, the popularity of asset stores, procedural generation, etc.
AI isn't threatening anyone's jobs. I've already put it to the test as a solo developer. It doesn't even threaten 2d artist's jobs; we need the PSD files to be able to do cool stuff with it, like UI design elements. Images with prebaked colour, linework and lighting are useless. 1-off 'hero' artworks used for things like loading screens need to be more detail specific than what AI can provide. Being able to communicate, delegate and iterate work with a 2d artist is invaluable compared to entering text, leaving the generator on, and hoping you get something useable at the end of the day.
I don't think they'd be able to overcome these limitations with AI, either. The most difficult issue likely being converting a generated diffuse map (which would require training an ILM purely off of diffuse maps) into a normal map, and that just isn't possible with any form of accuracy. You can use Bitmap2Material, load in a image and have it spit out all of the maps for you, but you'll notice the normal maps are basically worthless outside of niche scenarios.
Any serious studio right now would not be considering replacing their artists for AI.
AI isn't threatening anyone's jobs. I've already put it to the test as a solo developer. It doesn't even threaten 2d artist's jobs; we need the PSD files to be able to do cool stuff with it, like UI design elements. Images with prebaked colour, linework and lighting are useless. 1-off 'hero' artworks used for things like loading screens need to be more detail specific than what AI can provide. Being able to communicate, delegate and iterate work with a 2d artist is invaluable compared to entering text, leaving the generator on, and hoping you get something useable at the end of the day.
I don't think they'd be able to overcome these limitations with AI, either. The most difficult issue likely being converting a generated diffuse map (which would require training an ILM purely off of diffuse maps) into a normal map, and that just isn't possible with any form of accuracy. You can use Bitmap2Material, load in a image and have it spit out all of the maps for you, but you'll notice the normal maps are basically worthless outside of niche scenarios.
Any serious studio right now would not be considering replacing their artists for AI.
That seems optimistic to me. If there's one thing companies have shown time and time again is that they don't really care if the quality drops if it means they can save a few bucks to increase their profits.
AI isn't threatening anyone's jobs. I've already put it to the test as a solo developer. It doesn't even threaten 2d artist's jobs; we need the PSD files to be able to do cool stuff with it, like UI design elements. Images with prebaked colour, linework and lighting are useless. 1-off 'hero' artworks used for things like loading screens need to be more detail specific than what AI can provide. Being able to communicate, delegate and iterate work with a 2d artist is invaluable compared to entering text, leaving the generator on, and hoping you get something useable at the end of the day.
I don't think they'd be able to overcome these limitations with AI, either. The most difficult issue likely being converting a generated diffuse map (which would require training an ILM purely off of diffuse maps) into a normal map, and that just isn't possible with any form of accuracy. You can use Bitmap2Material, load in a image and have it spit out all of the maps for you, but you'll notice the normal maps are basically worthless outside of niche scenarios.
Any serious studio right now would not be considering replacing their artists for AI.
there are plenty positions being phased out for ai operators despite the fact that this is all legally not settled yet.
sure it might not be as visible in AAA but in "lower tier" productions it is indeed a thing already. people switching to cleaning AI shit instead of creating stuff themselves, because they can just push out more.
gambling, mobile games, many smaller scale productions, that squeeze out any possible dime.
and i mean just scroll up, there are examples in this very thread that would have been days or weeks of work for someone. that is work/jobs gone, right here right now.
Pixel art and game icon store are filled with AI stuff already, surely is not taking AAA environment artist jobs yet but is slowly chipping away income of some.
Pixel art and game icon store are filled with AI stuff already, surely is not taking AAA environment artist jobs yet but is slowly chipping away income of some.
Its adding so much to the lawsuit, its peculiar really, if Open AI loses, its billions of dollars in damages, and the use of video makes it even worse than what they did with getty images. And any copyright regulation will kill the company forcing it to rebuild using public domain data to create content nobody wants.
Horrible waste of resources. Sam Altman and Aditya Ramesh don't seem to have any concept of the damage they are doing with this technology. I'm thinking they are blinded by their unethical ambition to create a utopia funded by universal basic income where all of humanity will regurgitate random AI generated garbage. Like that ghoul has the gall to insist that copyright laws be revoked so that Open AI (funded by microsoft) can keep training since if this isn't allowed china will create something similar.
that's the age old excuse for every evil. "If I don't do, the other guy will."
I watched some interview with one of the founders and he was saying that pretty much verbatim. If they believe it themselves then they are too stupid to be in charge of anything. But I don't think they are that stupid, so then it has to be deception which makes them evil. That's pretty much a given though, altruistic people aren't surviving in a den of evil like that.
I'm thinking that if I don't build a bomb and blow a hole in the bank and then drive off with all the money, somebody else is going to do that. And they won't be a nice guy like me who will use the money to plant trees and build schools. So I just need to do it for the good of everybody. And just what is the bank doing with all the money anyway? How did they get it? Isn't usury the cause of all of our problems? I'm like Robin Hood to blow the bank up. In fact the government really should be paying me all that tax money so that I can build the biggest bomb first, and regulate the other guys who are trying to do the same thing.
It doesn't seem that Open AI's source is synthetic, honestly the whole situation would have been less controversial if they had simply approached artists for training data at the very beginning. But they used the silicon valley hype approach by tech bros totally disregarding the creators behind the data they scraped.
Sam Altman and Aditya Ramesh don't seem to have any concept of the damage they are doing with this technology. I'm thinking they are blinded by their unethical ambition to create a utopia funded by universal basic income where all of humanity will regurgitate random AI generated garbage. Like that ghoul has the gall to insist that copyright laws be revoked so that Open AI (funded by microsoft) can keep training since if this isn't allowed china will create something similar.
I think it's less that they don't have a concept. I think they just don't care. And why would they? It's making them a shit-tonne of money, isn't it?
And of course, we live in a capitalist society, so there's no way our governments and corporations - which are basically the same thing through the power of bribing - I mean, "lobbying" politicians - are going to give people money to live. That would eat into the profits. The line might not keep going up, can't have that. So we're probably going to have all the dystopian reality of media being AI-regurgitated slop, and none of that ability to live.
Pixel art and game icon store are filled with AI stuff already, surely is not taking AAA environment artist jobs yet but is slowly chipping away income of some.
From a technical point of view it is amazing, the results however give me the creeps, even more than still images. Especially when humans are involved this feels like a new level of uncanny valley, too many things are just off.
Replies
This last point is so very true IMHO - and that's probably the saddest part about the whole AI debacle. Digital illustrative art has been around for about 20 years now (in the sense of Painter and Photoshop being used for illustrative painting), yet is seems to have largely failed at even being aknowledged by the general public outside of pop nerdoms. But it took only one year for "it looks like AI" to become a thing. Even actors and movie enthousiasts are mixing up CG avatars and AI imagery, lumping everything digital into the same basket ...
https://www.artstation.com/blogs/occultart/Z4mqY/some-last-condensed-thoughts-on-ai
I agree largely with what your saying on the blog although there are few things I don't.
Lets not kid ourselves here and pretend like we had a paradise before AI came out. Go to social media websites, Artstation, Youtube, DeviantArt especially, etc. Can you honestly say those places weren't already flooded with an endless amount of content devoid of feeling, worthless and uninteresting? This an inherent issue of allowing anyone and everyone to post their work online.
For digital art yes. Eventually AI will completely automate the whole thing, not just large parts.
Crag Mullins even pointed this out in a Bobby Chiu interview where he mentioned computer programmers were geniuses for figuring out a way that lets you mimic art on a computer using software. However he one day mused about a terrifying prospect of....what if the programmers could simply build a program that can generate the art for you and remove the human out of the equation entirely? He predicted this years ago before AI art became a thing and it seems his fears were in fact well founded.
This is just an inherent issue of anything digital. If a human made it on a computer, it can be automated by the AI.
..so also some "pieces of a.." may find someone who want to pay for it..
So the special use of AI in generating images increases the occurence of "general art products" which was produced by people before.. it might even produce more "realistic" images.. but then this also might be an opportunity to make more "artistic styled" art or "better" compositions in photos..
According to AI images this even might make artists more artistic in the future and avert the "simpler daily bread producing work"..
But of course being not in such position makes talk easy
Just because the AI can generate more generic art at a faster pace doesn't make it a problem. If anything that means there will be less human art, which increases human art rarity and will allow for them to stand out better.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231231203837/https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEglfejpqgVcaf-I-cgZ5ngV_MlaOTeGXAoBPJO69FM/htmlview#
context
Under Artists, 908*
David Fletcher, game artist at Sony Playstation
Edit: * slight number correction, copied the lists out to do quicker searches and the numbering got changed.
And then on top of that there are these lists which I believe are partly automated and partly manually curated, probably to steer the training further. This has been well-known for a while, this is only re-surfacing now because of it being part of one of the lawsuits.
This is just another demonstration of how this tech is ethically rotten to the core and has always been. Because even though "prompt filters" are implemented (like for instance not being able to type in "Ghibli"), the data is still there and used. The only fair outcome being the complete destruction of the model.
And furthermore, it shows once more that the devs claiming that "they can't possibly track and compensate everyone" has been BS from the start. It was always BS since everyone can track the source of any artwork in a matter of seconds or minute - they just never *wanted* to do it. It's just all the more self-evident know that these lists are becoming common knowledge.
- - - - -
As for the "core" stuff : basically in the last few years adding "-core" to various terms has been a popular way for terminally online people to describe this or that visual style. Cottage-core, War-core, and so on. It's moronic indeed, but a perfectly logical thing to do for people who are caught in the "attention economy" (either as content-creator or customers). So it somewhat logically follows that when curating a list and defining prompting terms some random combos of "-core" would be used ... or perhaps even procedurally generated.
It's hilarious though
In this case in particular they probably scraped this :
https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Mommy's_on_the_phonecore
From : https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Aesthetics_Wiki
Now whether or not this one is procedurally generated or a "real" joke (for lack of a better word), who knows ...
(Also saying "this art was created by humans" is kinda gross. >If it had been created by humans< you'd really thing they'd credit the artist or team that worked on it.)
I've seen some art that left me scratching my head as to whether or not it was human or AI, but they're taking the piss on this one. Maybe they meant human prompt generated? lol
To be fair they didn't use it in their cards as far as we know, but by doing this they certainly hurt their credibility.
I feel that unless the ethical and copyright considerations are addressed, AI use is very condemnable, though I can see some creativity in its use,
for example by this photographer friend, (NSFW)
https://www.instagram.com/oswaldfitchjapan/?hl=en
People are selling others art in "their stores" on artstation and saying 50% off from packing it together in a package? confused about this one but i think its that...cause it blatantly states it, zero portfolio. (i do not really want a response to this more sharing this, new/old? situation,but then again i do want one if i am mistaken somehow, it reads really strangely, free money just copy save pack post...?)
Terms Artificial Intelligence, &/or A.I. (An eye or any variation of intelligence besides free will,free thinking human intelligence, thereof, under the law of the land and/or any additional protective laws therein) is hereby now referred to as, "it/alien".
It is thievery to me, whomever made it, used it and whomever was involved with it should be sued, arrested, banned and locked up till the end of time.
In this hypothetical possibility, i would also add a in perpetuity law that can not ever become void, overwritten, changed nor added to, that states, if you implement, act on, construct, conspire via communications of any kind with anyone even yourself, to implement such imitations and/or systems manually or in automation, you void, forfeit, nullify your life (existence) and would be found guilty of crimes against, Geneva Conventions & human rights, of Humanities, "free thinking creative expression", i.e. creativity, art and/or self expression, life, intelligence and the vessel's that they inhabit, has already been made, you(nor anyone,ever) are NOT needed to attempt to recreate it whatsoever, via imitating it and/or alter it in anyway.
Any actions that stagnates, pauses, and/or hinders, causes distress in anyway, in any meaning of the terms, in attempts to circumvent, sustainment of, employment opportunities and/or the betterment of one's life in anyway, people and/or person/s, the minorities and/or majority, your life (existence) is here by forfeit, void & nullified, to be disposed of, immediately, by military tribunals and/or any members of the public, upon verification of identity and guilt only, whether or not having changed identity and/or having had surgery/s or dental changes to circumvent dispatching, by any means necessary, upon sight, at their discretion.
Any being/s found guilty of contributing to circumvention and/or hindrances no matter the number via any means, are automatically accomplices & held equal in kind manner to the stipulations of this law.
The only one immune from this would be, The creator of all things, "themself", which they would have to prove by creating something out of nothing, with nothing but themself, outside of themself, that has never been viewed throughout eternity by human eyes, apart from natural occurrences, in an attempt to fool lesser minds, in-front of "everyone", then they could alter these conditions and/or dispute to remove them, via trial/counsel.
(this was fun, i feel better, lawyers did i do well...?.)
(too much?)
https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/19fmz4x/for_fun_i_decided_to_test_nightshade_a_new_tool/
Original:
Glaze
Kin ART
https://app.3dfy.ai/
https://spline.design/ai
for people who already have some means, it can help them increase their means. for people without, it takes away some options they had. I think it will increase demand for something like UBI or a bloody revolution. With incompetent, corrupt governments and rapid increase of global temperature, i think violence and revolution is more likely than UBI and blissfully ignorant technological utopia. Then nobody is going to care about art for a long time, or maybe ever again. If technological utopia, then art is the only thing anybody cares about, even though it is fundamentally meaningless. Just as birds chirping their songs is.
people who have been complacent in either becoming independent or building social networks will suffer but that is true since the beginning of time. You either do for tribe and tribe does for you, or you make it on your own. The trouble is that people have been tricked by psychopaths into thinking that their labor made them valued member of tribe, but really there is no tribe. pretty much most of the "developed" world, people compete against each other and believe that this is the cause of their material luxuries. But once the job doesn't need you, you can starve on the streets, and who is going to care? Nobody unless you have a tribe.
There is high priority in creating more proprietary AI tools in studio and this approach is influencing their retention policy when it comes to concept artists.
Would it be a good idea to include the use of AI tools in concept art portfolios?
The job listings do not openly state that using AI tools is a requirement and most of the concept artists seem to be against AI use publicly, though they are actively encouraged to use the tools at the workplace.
For 3D modeling, there's mixed consensus on using AI art as reference, though AI is being used at studios to create mood boards and concept art sheets that are then referenced and cleaned up by concept artists.
There is emphasis on using it for texturing, so far its not at a level where it can compare with internal libraries and outsourcer rates.
One reason that AI tool usage is encouraged is because it looks good to investors who don't really care too much about the actual outcome but are aware of the investments made into AI, hence when a studio endorses it during its earnings reports, they are likely to remain onboard and invest more.
I'm not too sure if the studios care about the outcome of AI use either, its too early to tell.
But the employees aren't supposed to talk about this openly, or atleast not make their opinions on its use indicative of the stance of the studio.
This is largely because of the bad press AI has been receiving because of unethical use of copyrighted content.
I do wish I could list the studios, though I can say its pretty much every AAA studio that is reliant on investor funding.
https://app.meshy.ai/workspace/text-to-3d
I popped into a shop the other day and saw this card selection, Ai is infiltrating every creative outlet.
aside all the arguments pro/con AI, this is just... uncomfortable. Being surrounded by images that don't quite look right is a little unnerving.
What thoughts do you have when you see this?
Do you see jobs under a real threat, or are we just going to embrace this technology as an assistant?
The truth is, I feel increasingly threatened, and my motivation is decreasing.
I would like to know the opinion of the community, to know if it's still worth investing hours in Blender, spending my money on Substance, and on training to improve in my work.
Having to learn how to use normal maps, the rise of sculpting apps, photogrammetry, the popularity of asset stores, procedural generation, etc.
I don't think they'd be able to overcome these limitations with AI, either. The most difficult issue likely being converting a generated diffuse map (which would require training an ILM purely off of diffuse maps) into a normal map, and that just isn't possible with any form of accuracy. You can use Bitmap2Material, load in a image and have it spit out all of the maps for you, but you'll notice the normal maps are basically worthless outside of niche scenarios.
Any serious studio right now would not be considering replacing their artists for AI.
That seems optimistic to me. If there's one thing companies have shown time and time again is that they don't really care if the quality drops if it means they can save a few bucks to increase their profits.
In a world where the training data used for these models was ethically sourced* would there still be a problem?
* you don't need to dispute whether it's possible or not, just work on that premise
Anaways crazy new stuff from openai: https://openai.com/sora#capabilities
Great thread analysing one of the videos
here's the video
https://cdn.openai.com/sora/videos/tokyo-in-the-snow.mp4
Its adding so much to the lawsuit, its peculiar really, if Open AI loses, its billions of dollars in damages, and the use of video makes it even worse than what they did with getty images.
And any copyright regulation will kill the company forcing it to rebuild using public domain data to create content nobody wants.
Horrible waste of resources. Sam Altman and Aditya Ramesh don't seem to have any concept of the damage they are doing with this technology.
I'm thinking they are blinded by their unethical ambition to create a utopia funded by universal basic income where all of humanity will regurgitate random AI generated garbage.
Like that ghoul has the gall to insist that copyright laws be revoked so that Open AI (funded by microsoft) can keep training since if this isn't allowed china will create something similar.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/11/the-inside-story-of-microsofts-partnership-with-openai
I watched some interview with one of the founders and he was saying that pretty much verbatim. If they believe it themselves then they are too stupid to be in charge of anything. But I don't think they are that stupid, so then it has to be deception which makes them evil. That's pretty much a given though, altruistic people aren't surviving in a den of evil like that.
I'm thinking that if I don't build a bomb and blow a hole in the bank and then drive off with all the money, somebody else is going to do that. And they won't be a nice guy like me who will use the money to plant trees and build schools. So I just need to do it for the good of everybody. And just what is the bank doing with all the money anyway? How did they get it? Isn't usury the cause of all of our problems? I'm like Robin Hood to blow the bank up. In fact the government really should be paying me all that tax money so that I can build the biggest bomb first, and regulate the other guys who are trying to do the same thing.
Hopefully this gets added to the lawsuit and the only entity that blows up is open AI
If you read this tech paper it's literally the same unethical crap,
https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-as-world-simulators
https://news.mit.edu/2022/synthetic-data-ai-improvements-1103
It doesn't seem that Open AI's source is synthetic, honestly the whole situation would have been less controversial if they had simply approached artists for training data at the very beginning.
But they used the silicon valley hype approach by tech bros totally disregarding the creators behind the data they scraped.
Especially when humans are involved this feels like a new level of uncanny valley, too many things are just off.