Anyone else feel like just saying F it and giving up?


We had a good run but the drawing is on the wall. I see a lot of people saying that AI art isn't as good or whatever……yet.


we are living in the age of abundance, where a million iterations of an idea can be spat out by machine before a human can do even one. I think we are deluding ourselves like the horses standing on the side of the highway or the network news anchors.



Sorry for another doompost. I don't have anywhere else to talk about this shit. I still love drawing but I'm feeling like a whaler, a cowboy, or a typewriter.

I don't know man…
I look at AI art and all I see is a a vast lameness- a lack of talent, art theft inability to do anything interesting or creative…

It's like when I do pro photography and I look at something done with an iphone and filters I just think “yeah, nice try kiddo”.
Or as a graphic designer I see some person proudly saying they did all their graphic design with “canva” and I just have to smile.

The truth is these AI tools were coded by idiots when it comes to art. The stuff I know that goes into my worst pics, they have no conception of the intricacy… They're just copies of the mot superficial aspects of anything.


It's like comparing bad 90s techno to Mozart.

But…. I like bad 90s techno

Dunno about cowboys. The more and newer technologies they add to raising cattle, the more they find that the skills of a decent cowboy can't be replaced.

That gives me hope.


I'm just having a fucking existential crisis. I hate this future with ww3 and possible aliens, super volcanoes, coronal mass ejections, pandemics, climate catastrophe, demographic collapse…. But no god-damned flying cars or real hover boards… And inflation …. 🍻

You've summed things up brilliantly. Although it could boil down to the old chestnut, life sucks then you die. But while you're here, find something that interests you. That something may be making comics with amazing boobs and bendy toy sex, I will never judge anyone for this, it's ultimate artistic freedom of expression, which no AI can hope to match.

AI “art” is honestly a fun toy, but that's all it really is at best. A toy.

Honestly I wouldn't even two farts over the computer Frankensteining and applying a filter over a filter several pieces of work if it wasn't the techboys whining and acting like they are going to kill every artists and become mega rich off of commissions with no work.

Just like they tried with NFTs and failed, and with dozens of crypto currencies and failed, and with WoW gold plus virtual real estate and failed, as well as asset flips and failed.

There's signs that ai images is failing and soon will become as interesting as Yo Yogi pogs.

I dunno, I'm on the Duck for a couple of reasons. One is that my “art” is filtering 3D and stock stuff. Sure, it's an original story, original characters and dialogues, etc, but that wouldn't help on sites that are profit-oriented and with marketing strategies. No one would give two fucks of my hard work on Tapas or Webtoon, because it's not hand-drawn (and doesn't fit the popular expectations in style), even here I'm sure there's over a 100 regular users who silently diss it and avoid it simply because they consider it effortless and “AI-like”. The other reason is that the Duck is far less limiting on artistic expression than any of the ones mentioned.

There's like two people, sometimes three that give regular feedback here and make me feel like it's worth it. So from my point of view, what I'm doing is already deemed inadequate and obsolete by the masses, it's already not going to bring me fame or pay my bills quite possibly ever. When I look at either AI artworks or decent ones drawn by just people, I too feel like I'll never be on that level with my set of skills and it's easy to get depressed over it. But no one is here in this community because they are successful with tens of thousands of readers and followers on twitter (and if they are, it's sure as hell they don't need the Duck in their lives anymore). People are here to tell their stories in whatever damn way they want to and whatever damn way they can, even if it doesn't fit the rest of the world's expectations.

Essentially, a lot of us don't fit the rest of the world's expectations. Too sexual, too violent, too 3D, not professional or refined enough, not the right style, not the right mix of genres… It's easy to blame AI for not being acknowledged enough or compensated enough and there's no point arguing that it taking advantage of artists is unacceptable. But maybe when you measure your own worth as an artist, you should apply different standards than the people who wouldn't even give your comics a chance, because what's trending and what they can do with two clicks makes them feel better about themselves. If Ilya Kuvshinov goes broke, it'll be because of AI. If we go broke, it'll be because we chase our passion even if we'll never be Ilya Kuvshinovs and without that, art would've died a long time ago.

InkyMoondrop wrote:
I dunno, I'm on the Duck for a couple of reasons. No one would give two fucks of my hard work on Tapas or Webtoon, because it's not hand-drawn (and doesn't fit the popular expectations in style), even here I'm sure there's over a 100 regular users who silently diss it and avoid it simply because they consider it effortless

Essentially, a lot of us don't fit the rest of the world's expectations. Too sexual, too violent, too 3D, not professional or refined enough, not the right style, not the right mix of genres…

So well said. These two quotes really resonate with me and state much of what I've tried to say for my years here. And say it so much than I ever have.

For the record, there is no art that I consider effortless. Art is first and foremost conceptual, needing imagination, composition, and perseverence to put what is in your mind in paper. So one artist uses stick figures, the other does fully rendered paintings, and yet another does 3D renders or collages or photoshoots of carefully composed dioramas. NONE of that is effortless.

And even if we accept AI as yet another art tool, in order to produce something that is AI created but still is a solid art piece, you need a ton of post-AI editing because AI is first and foremost random. Even if technologies advance the limitations will stay. That's why while there is autopilot in planes you still need humans to oversee everything is well. Machines will always be machines- simulators. And they might be able to simulate artists really well, but that's all they will be. A simulation.

Now, will there be cheapos or idiots who will totally accept an AI simulation as art? Of course. But that doesn't kick you off your niche. People who resort to AI for quick cheap art, will get quick cheap simulations and are likely to have been the folks that are never going to commission an artist anyway.

Everyone else will still commission actual artists to produce actual art, because human creations have logic an AI will never have.

Bottom line (tl;dr if you like): AI is for people who never appreciated you anyway. Screw them, do your art, and enjoy life :)

Oh, and a tag-on: AI images are right now a ‘wild west’ territory. When it becomes properly regulated (and it will be, we are already moving towards that) people will have trouble training it on the styles they like if they are copyrighted. Therefore, it will be basically molded back to what it should be: an art tool, not an artist.

Copyrighting a style though rather than actual material… doesn't sound very realistic. They might've found a legal loophole to make a lot of money without getting sued but I don't see how the style of the generated product would make any difference if the elements of it aren't already found to be infringing on copyright. Artist would be even worse off if anyone could sue them for using an already established artstyle even to just practice and find their own. The wider online artistic community is already cancer on social media for acting like they're entitled to all your money if you don't wanna spend 10 years practicing, just because they did. The last thing they need is calling out and shaming some poor f for making fanarts without buying a license first.

No what I meant was that the AI won't be able to be trained off copywrited material of a specific style. When it comes to fanart by actual artists, there are already regulations in place.

Tantz_Aerine wrote:
No what I meant was that the AI won't be able to be trained off copywrited material of a specific style. When it comes to fanart by actual artists, there are already regulations in place.

I know what you meant, but if there is currently not enough legal issue with training an AI off of copyrighted material of a specific artist, how would a specific style make it more difficult for coders to do it? When specific artworks are far easier to define than an artistic style that's sometimes extremely difficult to define as in where it begins and where it ends.

The way I see the use of “AI art” is inspiration.
Use it for working out stuff or helping to brainstorm ideas. That goes with the images, with text, music, and video.

Never, ever post the product of AI by itself.

It has a valid use: in working out ideas. That's all.

I see people occasionally posting AI art on instagram and it just represents their failure to me. They don't realise how pathetic it is. It's actually worse, much, much, much worse than finding a random pic of a woman online, putting a snapchap manga filter on her face and then posting the resultant product as your art piece.
This “art” has nothing to do with that human who claims it. It's the generic looking product of a brainless program trained on stolen work.


—–

Let's not confuse that with the use of pre-made 3D models or bought action figures. That's hard work, it's highly personalised. It's nothing what-so-ever like the brainless, generic stuff made by AI.
Even sprite art is may levels above it

InkyMoondrop wrote:

I know what you meant, but if there is currently not enough legal issue with training an AI off of copyrighted material of a specific artist, how would a specific style make it more difficult for coders to do it? When specific artworks are far easier to define than an artistic style that's sometimes extremely difficult to define as in where it begins and where it ends.

There soon will be tons of legal issue. That was my point. The style in itself won't be copyrighted of course, but if you need to pay and/or have permission to use images in that style to train the AI (you can't quite code it as I understand it) then you simply won't have AI able to produce images in that style.

“There soon will be tons of legal issue. That was my point.”

Good. I actually got inspired by this whole AI misery. Might work on something later that focuses on studying the societal effects of even more “progress” and I guess I'd have to leave it up to the readers to decide whether its a distopia or utopia.

Ozoneocean wrote:
The way I see the use of “AI art” is inspiration.
Use it for working out stuff or helping to brainstorm ideas. That goes with the images, with text, music, and video.

Let's not confuse that with the use of … bought action figures.

For the record many of my figures are custom with painted and repainted head sculptures. Some are complete OOAK personal creations. Much of the furniture, backgrounds and props are hand made or highly modified. I really can't leave well enough alone.

As for AI, I have a writing program loaded for inspiration but so far it's been very lame and unimaginative. No spark just “meh”. And if I put in anything not perfectly PC it will give me a lecture on the subject.

bravo1102 wrote:
For the record many of my figures are custom with painted and repainted head sculptures. Some are complete OOAK personal creations. Much of the furniture, backgrounds and props are hand made or highly modified. I really can't leave well enough alone.

Yup, I see custom faces. You get outfits, dress them, pose them, make sets, the whole deal.
That and the work that goes into a lot of 3D comics is just exactly as much as hand drawn artwork. There are easier aspects here and there but it all balances out in the end.

Compared to that AI work is like asking a stupid friend to do stuff for you and then claiming their work.

Ah, AI art wouldn't touch comics. It'll stick to things that have proven to make money like concept and video game art.

InkyMoondrop wrote:
I dunno, I'm on the Duck for a couple of reasons. One is that my “art” is filtering 3D and stock stuff. Sure, it's an original story, original characters and dialogues, etc, but that wouldn't help on sites that are profit-oriented and with marketing strategies. No one would give two fucks of my hard work on Tapas or Webtoon, because it's not hand-drawn (and doesn't fit the popular expectations in style), even here I'm sure there's over a 100 regular users who silently diss it and avoid it simply because they consider it effortless and “AI-like”. The other reason is that the Duck is far less limiting on artistic expression than any of the ones mentioned.

There's like two people, sometimes three that give regular feedback here and make me feel like it's worth it. So from my point of view, what I'm doing is already deemed inadequate and obsolete by the masses, it's already not going to bring me fame or pay my bills quite possibly ever. When I look at either AI artworks or decent ones drawn by just people, I too feel like I'll never be on that level with my set of skills and it's easy to get depressed over it. But no one is here in this community because they are successful with tens of thousands of readers and followers on twitter (and if they are, it's sure as hell they don't need the Duck in their lives anymore). People are here to tell their stories in whatever damn way they want to and whatever damn way they can, even if it doesn't fit the rest of the world's expectations.

Essentially, a lot of us don't fit the rest of the world's expectations. Too sexual, too violent, too 3D, not professional or refined enough, not the right style, not the right mix of genres… It's easy to blame AI for not being acknowledged enough or compensated enough and there's no point arguing that it taking advantage of artists is unacceptable. But maybe when you measure your own worth as an artist, you should apply different standards than the people who wouldn't even give your comics a chance, because what's trending and what they can do with two clicks makes them feel better about themselves. If Ilya Kuvshinov goes broke, it'll be because of AI. If we go broke, it'll be because we chase our passion even if we'll never be Ilya Kuvshinovs and without that, art would've died a long time ago.

Beautiful

ksteak wrote:
Ah, AI art wouldn't touch comics. It'll stick to things that have proven to make money like concept and video game art.

also beautiful

Every time now that I see an ad for a restaurant or club or party that has dancing and they proudly say “we have a DJ” I die a little inside.
I imagine that for actual musicians, when that crap started to happen that was their AI art moment.

-I'm not against all DJs, I am good friends with a few. I'm just totally against DJs being the music performer at sophisticated parties or restaurants.
At a club rave, dance party, or concert they're fine.

At weddings and birthdays a DJ is often preferable to a band. Some covers are just awful and the master of ceremony can be uninspired to say the least.

My sister's birthday had this great MC/DJ
Who brought a lot of life to the party. It was also interesting to party with all the interesting people she's known during her long career in government.

But then my own wedding all we could afford was a couple of blank cassettes for me to make a mix tape. A very eclectic mix tape. XD

Soon even the DJs will be replaced by ai.







But not the JD!

lothar wrote:
Soon even the DJs will be replaced by ai.







But not the JD!

Be crazy if they replaced alcohol with an AI that stimulates all the effects of getting drunk in your body without the potential health problems.
Replace drugs too. Just pop the AI pill and have a great trip, even programmable hallucinations, come back and no ill effects.

And you can switch the buzz, drunk or trip at any time just by informing the AI.

Newsreaders replaced with AI Link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-13/artificial-intelligence-news-readers-becoming-common-in-asia/102591790
They come up with fake justifications of various kinds about linguistics and such but it's all a lie. AI bots mean they can control the fake news reader and they can't do anything embarrassing or controversial and it also means they don't have to pay a human being.

These morons even came up with a stupid bio for the fake person:
“Chuffed to be 1st AI anchor for AajTak. Sports & puzzles enthusiast.
Can share failed recipes. Travel, path less taken. Unapologetically myself!”

Why would they do that?


I know that when I use voice activation for my lights and TV on Google Nest at home the bot talks back and will say “I'm honoured to serve” among other things if I say “thankyou”.
I thank it and use “please” out of human convention because if I'm not polite to the AI I might also fall out of the habit of being polite when I deal with real humans.
I don't think I'm talking to a thinking creature so I don't need it to talk back about being honoured or apologise for getting things wrong. That's just creepy and uneeded. We don't need to pretend these helper programs and human in any way.

Ai “art” has already taken over those crappy YouTube shorts of “5 crazy facts about hitler” and shit like that. It's really uncanny valley garbage. I hate it. It's only helpful in getting me angry enough to stop mindlessly scrolling though shorts.


Also, the ai is getting better at generating spam posts. I saw 3 here today all from a bot called Devon something.

The clickbait videos with the AI narration are the absolute worst. Though there was one on supernatural topics that I swore was AI. Then she did a series with walking tours and surprise! It was a real person who must have taken some class on doing narration in the droning sing-song most AI uses. XD
Didn't help that she had the BBC accent.

Really scary that there's an older gentleman AI narrator that also has a video component that is so real that it's creepy. But the mouth doesn't quite synchronize and the expressions are just off enough to tell it's CGI and an AI voice program.