AI Content Help- Ask questions, discuss, comment, complain

The current policy is where it needs to be

40.51% 64 votes

The current policy did not go far enough

29.11% 46 votes

The current policy has gone too far

25.32% 40 votes

Something else? (Mention it below)

5.06% 8 votes

Poll ended 1 years ago with 158 votes.

Shimauma

@LemonDrop

Most artists cannot even do lighting correctly let alone keep perspective consistent in a 3D scene.

AI is not aware of lighting or 3D either. AI is not conscious of what it is creating. All it does is take an algorithm based on it’s training materials and decides what color pixel is most likely to go next to the previous ones.

What offends so many is that what AI produces is without consciousness or intention, but we’re being told to respect it.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Ciaran

Senior Moderator

君場森生きる

@LemonDrop
I acknowledge your perspective, but not everyone approaches art in the same way. While some artists may find it less enjoyable to create art for commissions or as a job, others may find it fulfilling and enjoyable to create art for others. And some hobbyist artists may enjoy using AI tools to explore new creative possibilities or to experiment with new techniques. Ultimately, it’s up to each individual artist to decide how they want to approach their own creative process, whether that involves using AI tools or not.

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

LemonDrop

C++ Crazed

@Shimauma
Sure but AI being a computer pays a lot more attention to detail and is remarkably good at emulating accurate lighting given how much 3D art it has seen and due to the overall consistency of how such things are lit (vs art by artists which has much less consistency in how it is shaded). Of course it’s still a highly fuzzy model and far from perfect, but it will only get better in time.

Consciousness is not required for a black box to translate ideas to visuals. Again see my other post for analyzing this hypothetical as this falls into the “AI is an artificial soulless creation” bucket.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

sammykun

Bacon enthusiast

People forget the fact that at some point in life something called the industrialization happened, when a lot of jobs started to be automated which obviously destroyed many jobs. But on the other hand, automation leads to margin of error, loss in quality and originality which is why even though you can buy a table made on a factory by ikea for cheap, if you want something more personalized and greater quality, you go to a carpenter even though it’s more expensive.

I think this is essentially what will happen to artists. Art is indeed created faster and with a decent result for simple tasks but if you want a more complex piece of art amd you’re looking for a specific style. Artists have you covered. Ai won’t destroy artists, ai will make them more valuable.

Some people will always prefer handcrafted work over something made on in a factory, and that’s how it’ll stay.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Clear Vision

Petrolhead Artist

@LemonDrop

Most artists cannot even do lighting correctly let alone keep perspective consistent in a 3D scene.

While this may be accurate for your average hobbyist artist, this is absolutely not true for the most talented human artists, or even just any artist you’d consider well above average irrespective of if they do MLP content or not. You completely ignored my point. The people who are among the best define the “quality bar”, not the average person.

Go look at Scott Robertson’s stuff if you want an example of someone who has a deep understanding of technical drawing in perspective and has written a book on it which I personally found extremely helpful with my drawings of cars. Or Marcello Baranghi if you want just one example of an artist who can do art most people would mistake for a photo or even an actual object at first glance. These are just two guys I can name off the top of my head, there’s many more examples of extremely talented artists who are talented in different ways if you just look for them.

Not even current computer rendering technology can achieve flawless photorealism (though they are getting close)

Yes, but at least IMO art doesn’t have to be 100% of the way there to be considered photorealistic. If most people would mistake a drawing for an actual photo at first glance (even other artists), it’s photorealistic in my eyes.

Also yes everything you use to make art that is some sort of technology is essentially a black box of varying degrees to translate the actions into something visual. Photoshop is obviously as is a tool like Blender (which does much more of the actual “drawing” for you)

I find it’s more helpful to think about the overall big picture of what’s happening with things like this unless you are trying to diagnose an issue. Digital art programs when used in conjunction with a drawing tablet aim to somewhat replicate the experience of drawing with a pencil and paper, or a brush and canvas. In some ways, it’s easier than traditional art, but in some ways it’s harder. If you use a tablet without a screen, the disconnect between where your hand is and where you see your cursor will take a little getting used to. Even with a screen, it still doesn’t quite feel like drawing on paper, because the cursor isn’t always perfectly aligned with the pen tip (parallax). If you only drew in black and white before with graphite and charcoal before, you will have to consider colour theory if you intend to make stuff in colour.

3D artists often wonder whether 2D artists have respect for them, I can’t speak for everyone, but even for 3D artists who use Blender I have a lot of respect for them if they make good work, in the same way I’d respect 2D artists. If anything, I’d respect them even more if they use their own models. It cannot be considered easy by any means, it shares very little with the process of 2D art.

AI is at the upper end of that spectrum since it does pretty much everything except the sourcing of creativity from the human (which is why it is still art and the person controlling it is the artist).

By this logic, the client of a commission is also the artist because they were the source of the creative idea even though the person they paid did literally all the actual work. If you disagree with this, I don’t know why you have a double standard for AI art. If you agree with this, literally every artist and even commissioner I know of would disagree with you. Are you the artist of every single art piece involving your OC?

At least to my understanding, the AI generators that will actually yield good results you need to pay to use, so how is this any different?

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

LemonDrop

C++ Crazed

@Clear Vision
“By this logic, the client of a commission is also the artist because they were the source of the creative idea even though the person they paid did literally all the actual work”

Yes I have said this in the past as well multiple times. Commissioners are part of the artistic process and without them a specific piece of art would not have been created (the person drawing it may have randomly decided to draw the exact same idea at some point but that’s beyond the point). Of course the commissioner only has a minor role but being the source of ideas and artistic direction is important. This is why the director of a movie is credited for the movie above all others, all they do is communicate their desires to others or sit around on set and direct people based on their vision but that coherent perspective they have of the desired final product is what brings everyone else’s talents together. Similarly games often will have someone in charge of like lead game design or art direction to ensure things stay consistent to some vision as well, not really the most absurd concept when you think about it like that.

Furthermore this is why Derpi should endorse the usage of a commissioner tag more because it is indeed relevant, especially if you want to see more art commissioned by a specific person (you’re expressing interest in that person’s art direction and taste in that case rather than say a specific artist’s style when searching by artist tag, though often artists draw themes they themselves want given they are hobbyists in fandoms like this so often you can accomplish both things by searching by artist tag).

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Clear Vision

Petrolhead Artist

@LemonDrop
Incorrect. With movies, games and any other projects that required a big group of people to make, everyone is credited with the specific role that they had in making it. The equivalent of what I was saying (and what you agreed to) would be if the movie director was credited for every role. And even then, the acting cast is usually credited first in movies as they’re the people who you actually see on screen.

The situation with credit regarding movies and art commissions is different, and a case of apples and oranges. Yes, artists usually tag or mention the commissioner by name unless they wish to remain anonymous, but no one acting in good faith would say “the commissioner” in response to the question of “who made this art piece?”, even though they were the one who provided the idea. Artists still retain their rights to the image they made even though the commissioner commissioned it, unless they had an agreement beforehand that would say otherwise. Commissioners cannot request image takedowns here on DB, only the artist.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Ciaran

Senior Moderator

君場森生きる

@Clear Vision & @LemonDrop
It really feels like both of you are going very far beyond the intent of this thread. Would you both please consider continuing your discussion via PMs?

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

LemonDrop

C++ Crazed

@Clear Vision
Artists (or anyone for that matter) do not have any rights to the image in the model of the world I follow, intellectual property is evil and should not be supported. Obviously reality is different but you should not cite copyright law in hypothetical discussions because copyright is a completely dysfunctional self-contradictory clusterfuck of laws so it’s just not useful to talk about in theoretical discussions.

Anyways the question of “made” is just vague anyways, if I asked who drew the picture then the answer would be the artist, if I asked who came up with the idea though the answer would be the commissioner. Made tends to imply something like drawing more though so it makes sense why people would answer that. If you ask who “made” a more complex work of art like a movie though the answer becomes even less clear, this is why credits exist and are often long, commissioners if anything in art are often overlooked and not properly credited which is unfortunate.

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #F65B

Reading this as an artist who does both Traditional art and Digital art….and doing commissions and vending at MLP cons.

You literally break my heart. You are many of the reasons why I cry at night and losing faith in this world….but you don’t care. You just don’t. You can’t seem to step back and actually see why there are issues in all of this stuff.

The tech isnt used in good faith at all. STILL. I like the concept of it, but it currently isn’t great. It is snowballing into destroying so many peoples lives.

I almost didnt open my commissions cause of people like you who think AI is so much easier and better.

I feel so destroyed by all of this. This is my career. My life. How I pay my bills…and you don’t see or care.

God I hate this.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #E103

@Background Pony #F65B
Dude. Like, rule #3 (not quite #1, but up there!) of art is “don’t let what other people think or do dictate what you do.” Keep opening your commissions. Keep making your art for the people who enjoy it. To me it sounds like you’re letting “what could happen” affect your life today, and that’s doomed to make even the most successful person in any sense fail.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

🂾𝕃𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕠𝕝𝕟𝔹𝕣𝕖𝕨𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣𝔽𝕒𝕟🂽

Goodbye guys ;)

@Background Pony #F65B
I feel bad for you. :(

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Ciaran

Senior Moderator

君場森生きる

@Background Pony #F65B
I understand your concerns and empathize with your frustration. We are doing what we can to ensure that those ai generated images which are allowed respect the work, and rights, of fan artists.

Our proposed policy also promotes the work of human artists and encourages the use of AI tools in a way that we hope will be creative and respectful.

I understand that this may not completely alleviate your concerns, but please know that the site values the contributions of all artists such as yourself, and is committed to providing a platform that is respectful of all those who use it.

If you have any specific concerns or suggestions on how the site can better support artists and would rather not share them publicly, please feel free to PM me or one of our administrators (their profiles are listed on the Site Staff List at the bottom of the page).

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Clear Vision

Petrolhead Artist

@Ciaran
No need, I’m not wiling to entertain that discussion further anyway. I’m just disappointed and quite frankly horrified.

@Background Pony #F65B
A friend of mine who I’ve had a discussion with recently had hoped that AI would be used as a “interactive rubber duck”, in the sense that it can point out flaws in your art and suggest ways to fix it. Unfortunately I’ve seen this coming for a while, and the only thing you can do as an artist now is to make your community, supporters and close followers feel even more special.

Don’t give up, whoever you are. Keep doing what you’re doing, and continue to make people happy with your art.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #A3CA

@Clear Vision and @Clear Vision
Just because you say incorrect things over and over doesn’t make them true.

Also wrong. You have no real control over what is actually produced, so it’s not your artistic desires. Whereas art you make yourself, you have control over everything up to the smallest details.

You don’t have control from the simple fact that it’s not you who’s making the final image. And if you have to edit an AI image, it just reinforces the fact that artists are still needed to make art. Even if you put in a preliminary sketch to somewhat control the composition, you don’t have full control over the shading or how lighting is handled.

What kind of argument even is this? A photographer does not invent the physics of light; they do not control every nuance. A 3d artist does not have to program every shader and algorithm. A concept artist does not have to place leaves on trees one at a time. Is a painter forbidden from choosing to relinquish control by throwing splatters at the canvas?
The only argument is for how much control someone has exerted on the result and what choices they have made. The only confounding issue is it gets hard to judge this for AI generated images, not that uncontrolled elements are present.

Wrong. PS doesn’t make images for you, and it’s not a matter of just clicking some buttons. Doing basic photo editing with it might be easy but as far as making art from scratch? You have to actually go and do it.

None of the features in Photoshop, Clip Studio, Medibang or any other art program are able to make a full image by itself, prompted or otherwise.

Of course they can. People can and do open a blank document, run the Clouds filter, and the Lens Flare filter, and upload it and call it art. This isn’t a relevant argument.

I personally hate elitism that is unfortunately present in some areas of the art community and I advocate against it. But even bearing that in mind, I think purely AI generated art has no place in any sort of artist focused community for the simple fact that it wasn’t made by an artist nor had any transformative work done by an artist. AI assisted works with significant work done, maybe. However you are truly naïve if you believe that is what AI will primarily be used for in the long run.

Please re-read what you wrote, and come to the realization that you ought to stop asserting that art in which AI generation was used cannot ever have meaning. You’d actually have a point if instead you express an opinion that people can’t be trusted to use it responsibly.

Coding is boring. You spend more time figuring out why it doesn’t work than the actual writing of it, and there’s not that many ways you can mix things up to keep it exciting. You may inherently like it if you’re into problem solving but I’d still argue there isn’t as much room for creativity in comparison at least, even though you theoretically could do anything with it.

…

This is so absurd, I can’t even think of how to formulate an argument against it because it’s so self-evidently incorrect.

By the way, you might like to look up (non-AI non-machine-learning) generative art, some time. Well, unless you don’t think abstract art is art.

A powerful tool to do what exactly? If you lack the skills to do something well, either try and find ways to improve, get someone to help you, or find something else to do if you’re not willing to do it purely for the fun of it.

So, if someone is not good at woodworking, they shouldn’t use a CNC - they must hire a craftsman? One mustn’t use a drum sequencer and instead hire a drummer? Please, stop wasting our time. There are genuine concerns to be had about AI image generation, and these aren’t them.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Clear Vision

Petrolhead Artist

@Background Pony #A3CA
While you have a point on my “coding is boring” statement in hindsight, for the other things you’ve pointed out I feel like you haven’t taken into consideration the context in which I said it. So allow me to briefly explain.

What kind of argument even is this? A photographer does not invent the physics of light; they do not control every nuance.

And at no point did I ever say or imply that photographers need to control every ray of light, 3D artists need to only use shaders they made from scratch, and that artists aren’t allowed to use leaf brushes in order for their works to be considered valid. Since Lemon is coming from this perspective that AI will help those who can’t draw:

LemonDrop
this to me sounds purely like a refusal to accept change when surely a black box like this would be an immensely powerful tool in communication for those who either lack the skills to communicate such things themselves (due to lack of the mechanical/brain skills required for the current tools we use to produce various types of art) or for those who simply do not want to spend the time/money on doing so

I meant in my response specifically to this that you only have vague control over the composition and lighting of the piece in terms of text prompts at best. Giving AI a preliminary sketch relies on you having some artistic skill, otherwise you’ll be limited to whatever existing images you can find and are allowed to use. 2D artists can draw anything from any angle, use any textured brushes they have even if they have inherent randomness, and place light sources wherever they want (and have them in any colour) provided they have the skills to do so. 3D artists can do the same if they are capable of making their own models, or are able to find models they want that they’re allowed to use. Photographers can take a picture of their subject at any angle they have access to, and if they’re in their own studio they’ll have some control over the lighting too.

Of course they can. People can and do open a blank document, run the Clouds filter, and the Lens Flare filter, and upload it and call it art. This isn’t a relevant argument.

And you’ll end up with something that looks like the sun peeking through clouds. Nothing wrong with simple art and I don’t know if the end result would look any good since I can’t test it myself, but unless PS is capable of doing more than just this it’s still primarily a photo editing program rather than an image generator.

Please re-read what you wrote, and come to the realization that you ought to stop asserting that art in which AI generation was used cannot ever have meaning. You’d actually have a point if instead you express an opinion that people can’t be trusted to use it responsibly.

If this was in response to the “maybe” part of AI assisted works, this is only because it depends entirely on what your definition of “transformative” is. The only thing that can objectively be said here is that an unedited AI generated image is AI generated - how much work needs to be done to an AI image in order for it to be considered transformative in your view?

AI not being used responsibly is also something I’m concerned about, as in the main thread I immediately asked about plagiarism with AI as my first question.

So, if someone is not good at woodworking, they shouldn’t use a CNC - they must hire a craftsman? One mustn’t use a drum sequencer and instead hire a drummer? Please, stop wasting our time. There are genuine concerns to be had about AI image generation, and these aren’t them.

You’ve misunderstood the point I was trying to make, as once again this is in response to something:

LemonDrop
those who simply do not want to spend the time/money on doing so

If you don’t have the time or drive to learn how to make good art, or money to have good art made for you, no one is forcing you to do so. You have free will, but you’re not owed good personalised art. There’s artists who don’t care if they’re good or not because they’re doing it for the fun of it and not specifically to get good at it. I only said this for a theoretical scenario where someone is frustrated that they can’t make good art even after sticking with it for a while and isn’t doing it for fun. I don’t think it’s bad advice to tell someone to try something different if they’re not having fun and not seeing progress when they want to, because maybe their talent lies elsewhere.

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #A3CA

@Clear Vision
Sorry, even with the context pointed out, what you’ve written in this reply strikes me as quite different (not merely clarified) compared to what you have written multiple times in previous posts. If this is a change in your opinions - avoiding untrue absolutes - I’m glad. I agree a lot more with what you wrote this time.

And you’ll end up with something that looks like the sun peeking through clouds. Nothing wrong with simple art and I don’t know if the end result would look any good since I can’t test it myself, but unless PS is capable of doing more than just this it’s still primarily a photo editing program rather than an image generator.

Heh, no, it looks terrible. And yes, PS definitely is (for now…) primarily an editor, not a generator. That was just a counter-example to when you said, repeatedly, that other non-AI programs cannot generate whole images.

If this was in response to the “maybe” part of AI assisted works, this is only because it depends entirely on what your definition of “transformative” is. The only thing that can objectively be said here is that an unedited AI generated image is AI generated - how much work needs to be done to an AI image in order for it to be considered transformative in your view?

I don’t even think it needs to be transformed post-generation - I think there can be sufficient creative control expressed through pre-generation settings and through selection/curation for AI image generation to be a tool to express a person’s vision, and to contain unique qualities that would have you coming back to repeatedly enjoy a particular creator.

It’s pretty clear that you don’t feel the same way, and maybe you even think that no matter how much time and effort someone spends with AI image generation, it’ll always result in something too far out of their control to count. I don’t have much personal experience working with these generators, so I can’t explain in detail how to go about it, but having browsed through a few of the projects people have been developing to take more control over the process convinced me easily that it is possible.

Then, as I wrote, (apart from the actual content of the image) it is fair to judge the actions someone has actually done and what choices they’ve made. These have always been things that influence how people value art - some people might devalue art that is made quickly, some people don’t care, some people want every stroke in a painting made deliberately…

The difficulty comes from one button press being able to make something that can be confused for something that has had meticulous time and attention paid to it. If you learn that a beautiful AI generated image was made only by pasting in someone else’s premade prompt and taking the best of a handful of results, it would be a fine opinion to value it as equally worthless as a press of the “random” button in Pony Creator or a 5-second stick figure in the margins of one’s math homework.

Both for AI generated images and for not, sometimes people record the process, and you can watch it for yourself. Other than that, you also can get a sense of whether someone is expressing an artistic vision when they have a body of work to look through, to showcase both consistency and intentional variety/breadth.

There isn’t a way to define “this is a sufficient amount of time and effort” - it’s something everyone will have their own opinions about, and I definitely encourage people to be critical, to dismiss carelessly churned-out content and to support thoughtful, enriching content, whether AI was utilized or not. Like you said, a lot of people are using AI as a shortcut and for mass-production and nothing more, and it might even be irredeemably prone to being used that way - but the issue then is human behavior, not that AI generated images cannot possibly ever be meaningful.

The AI policy here looks to be trying to combat churny mass-production through the upload rate limits, and excluding them from the featured section is (heavy-handedly) addressing that people may not be aware that the pretty thumbnail in their feed is not actually a masterful demonstration of hand-to-canvas skill, therefore overvaluing it compared to how they would if they paid attention.

_{why yes, that was a last-ditch attempt to keep the post on-topic for the thread}

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Clear Vision

Petrolhead Artist

@Background Pony #A3CA
I don’t think my actual opinion has changed that much, but at the same time I definitely feel more collected now than I was with those back and forth messages so I’d mostly put it down to me expressing myself better and better word choice. Either way, I’ll try to think a bit more carefully about what I’m saying in future.

AI is something that really bothers me right now…

but the issue then is human behavior, not that AI generated images cannot possibly ever be meaningful.

… but even with how much it’s bothering me, I have to admit you also have a point here when I take a step back and assess exactly why it bothers me. This definitely one area where my opinion has changed a bit.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

CrystalightX

Funny how just some time ago, the term “AI” commonly was just an abbreviation for Adobe Illustrator to most people in art, n now it’s all this.

When there’ll be some artificial intelligence plugins for that software (if not already), it’ll be like that old meme: “We put you an AI into your Ai, so you could use AI while working in Ai”, lol.

Posted 1 years ago Report
Edited 1 years ago

Link Quote Reply

🂾𝕃𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕠𝕝𝕟𝔹𝕣𝕖𝕨𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣𝔽𝕒𝕟🂽

Goodbye guys ;)

@CrystalightX

Funny how just some time ago, the term “AI” commonly was just an abbreviation for Adobe Illustrator to most people in art, n now it’s all this.

When there’ll be some artificial intelligence plugins for that software (if not already), it’ll be like that old meme: “We put you an AI into your Ai, so you could use AI while working in Ai”, lol.

That’s a good meme throwback 😁

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

sammykun

Bacon enthusiast

@☬ ᏝᏆᏁᏨᎾᏝᏁᏰᏒᎬᎳᏕᎿᎬᏒᎱᎯᏁ ☬
Technically, adobe (specifically photoshop) has been using ai for years before the machine learning technology came out

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

🂾𝕃𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕠𝕝𝕟𝔹𝕣𝕖𝕨𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣𝔽𝕒𝕟🂽

Goodbye guys ;)

@sammykun
True 😌

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Modera

Is Bézier curve an AI? If it is, I’m AI artist then, because I can’t imagine myself drawing without using MS Paint’s curve tool.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

T6J2E5

Verified blank-flank

I have no problem with this new AI policy. It’s a good starting point as the AI environment changes.

I don’t have a problem with limiting the amount of AI-generated artwork on the site (for several reasons). What I do have a problem with are blanket statements like, “AI bad because reasons.”

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

BlackCat

I find the rules correct, both indicating what is the source and allowing the creativity while limiting low effort images in basic usage.
Maybe change AI for ML (Machine Learning) or NN (Neuronal Network).
Also, can you auto add the tag to AI voice content? (an maybe rename the tags accordingly)
Just my two bits.

Posted 1 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!

AI Content Help- Ask questions, discuss, comment, complain

Poll results: Do you think the current policy is where it needs to be?