PCG Article AI artist who won competition says art world is 'in denial' about the tech

"This technology exists, and it's creating pieces that prove it can do this now."

A.I. image generation software is causing "a sort of existential crisis right now" in the art community, referencing the disruptive technology of OpenAI as well as DALLE-2 and Midjourney (the software he used).

"Denial is the first step in the grieving process, perhaps (and I am deliberately saying PERHAPS) artists should go through the healing process to reach their acceptance of A.I.," writes Allen. "Because it is not going away and is only going to become more powerful.
There was also a lot of denial on here the last time I posted an AI article :p

Seriously, though, it's already replaced human artists on some game projects, and there are no limits on how good it can become. We're in the transition right now.
 
As an artist i think using AI to generate ideas is both good and bad. As someone who is creatively bankrupt i can see the power of a machine spinning ideas and seeing the various ideas angle and coming up with creative pieces. So commercially in certain areas, i think it has potential ( worryingly).

That said on the flip side, grim news. i haven't really read much into the story as honestly it won't affect me and my hobby. but winning a competition with the use of the Ai? The first question i would ask is how much did the Ai create? if it created 80% of the picture and just did some minor tweaks with filters etc, how can an artist justify that they did the work?

ok perhaps an open digital medium category, they should have omitted AI work (so perhaps in the future other compos will), but the whole point of the competition was to show your skills in creatively and the artists craftmanship to create something using technology as the art medium. Some might argue that the AI is just another tool. i mean traditionalists complained that photoshop digital painting had nothing over classically trained artists. My counter to that? you still need to learn/apply the same artistic theory as traditional art mediums (light, proportion, color, perspective etc.) and you still had to create the work and technology can''t support bad art. But AI doing all the work? Where's the personal creativity or craftmanship? No need to study or learn how to make art just let a machine churn it out. How can you justify its YOUR work when you didn't do anything besides punch in a few key words and outsourcing most of your work? Replace the AI with other person and there would be an uproar. Same applies here.

Its like somehow winning a food competition and all i did was reheat a frozen gourmet pizza. Ok a factory machine made the pizza, but i put it in the oven and prepared it in such a way it was the best of the bunch so technically i cooked it!

But who knows, maybe there would be competing bespoke AIs created to create art and rather then being about art its about technology instead. I think to solve the problem, just have separate categories for digital competitions one that allows AI and another that doesn't.
 
Some might argue that the AI is just another tool
Very likely:
Phase 1: Crayon-like tools replace finger daubing—uproar ensues.
Phase 2: Brushes and synthetic paints replace crayon-like tools—uproar ensues.
Phase 3: Software tools replace manual methods—uproar ensues.
Phase 4: AI tools replace more manual software—uproar is ensuing :)

It's how things go.

When writing was invented, the story tellers and conversationalists were up in arms.
With printing, the scribes were out of business.
With world wide web, print industry takes a major hit.

And so it goes.

winning a competition with the use of the Ai?
If the competition was about the process, then your point is completely valid, and your solution is the obvious route:
have separate categories for digital competitions one that allows AI and another that doesn't
But for competitions which are about the output—ie the finished work—then all's fair in love an art and AI :)
 
The artist still put over 80 hours into the process and had to have enough knowledge of art to give the correct prompts and recognize the best output and then know how to properly touch it up so it would win a competition judged by professionals.

Artists in the future might not need to learn how to paint/draw themselves, but they'll still need a lot of knowledge to be able to get the right art, even if the art itself was drawn by a computer.
 

ToxicOffender

BANNED
Sep 5, 2022
62
113
220
I´d prefer "A.I. Artists" to rather waste their time with finding a way to inject their glorious A.I. into videogames rather than making it create "Art" the whole world doesn´t really care about.

Oh my! Imagine a Video-Game-A.I. being as clever as a human being but being far less stupid at the same time and now imagine how it would be to play a Multiplayer-Only-Game without toxic russian toddlers constantly yelling pointless crap into their mics...or even better yet...playing a Multiplayer-Only-Game without any other real people! A dream would come true! :love: :LOL:
 
I thought it might be a sticking point.
Animals can't own copyright - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
AI should be no different.
It should only be a human, so the maker of software should be copyright holder. And no one would use it for that reason unless its all created on open source.
But the maker of the software didn't create the art, they only made the tool. It is the person that uses that tool who creates the art, so it is the user that should hold the copyright on the image.
 
But the maker of the software didn't create the art, they only made the tool. It is the person that uses that tool who creates the art, so it is the user that should hold the copyright on the image.
Wait, scratch that. These AI programs really just encode text, so you only own the copyright on the result if you own the copyright on the original prompt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZedClampet

ToxicOffender

BANNED
Sep 5, 2022
62
113
220
So all up in the AIr for now ;)
:LOL:

A.I. "Artist".

I am sorry, but if you use A.I to create art, you are not an artist, as it is the A.I. that creates the art.
I have to agree.

Weird ways how "Artists" these days can call themself like that with doing things while on the other hand actually not really "doing" them after all while it is rather some program, machine or A.I. doing all the work.

It´s about the same with all those "Deepfake-Artists". I mean, me for example, i am a "Photoshp Artist" but i am doing all the work of copy´n pasting faces into pictures while trying to make it fit with altering colors, contrast, sharpness etc. all by myself, so what are those deepfakers actually do, besides more or less stuffing a bunch of pre-made pictures into the machine and let the software work its magic?
 
The artist still put over 80 hours into the process and had to have enough knowledge of art to give the correct prompts and recognize the best output and then know how to properly touch it up so it would win a competition judged by professionals.

Artists in the future might not need to learn how to paint/draw themselves, but they'll still need a lot of knowledge to be able to get the right art, even if the art itself was drawn by a computer.
This is good to know. I'd really hate for AI to make humans obsolete.

It should only be a human, so the maker of software should be copyright holder. And no one would use it for that reason unless its all created on open source.
If the AI software needs input from someone to be able to create the art, then I disagree. That's like saying the paint brush maker should get the credit for the Mona Lisa.
 
But for competitions which are about the output—ie the finished work—then all's fair in love an art and AI
In a commercial environment and in poorly outlined rules art competition. Absolutely. I wouldn't be surprised additional rules will be added to future art competitions or expect competitors to submit a step by step of what they did. What the guy created was bloody brilliant I would be proud to have created that.

AI created art exists now. Every stupid NFT is AI created art. Its not very good and mostly all useless.
Going back to the original post. i agree, the technology is here and to say that it doesn't exist are delusional. Just look at NFTs and special effects movies have. The technology exists and its happening. So yeah jason Allen is right.

But that's NOT what most people are complaining about. people are complaining how can you justify/claim that its YOUR work when you got an AI to do most of the work for you? and /or Can you call yourself the artist if you didn't do any of the painting?

I think everyone here agrees, it all very much depends on how transformative from AI to Jason allen was. Knee jerk reaction is to assume that the AI did all of it and he did the final finishing touches/corrections. But honestly until i see in detail the process and how much input there was we could argue either way. its like matte painting using photos and manipulating them or painting over them to make something new. if its completely different then yeah, i see no problems.

if the Ai created 80%+ and he threw a couple of final touches and filters, i don't believe he can justify it. hell they have to be one pretentious prick to say "i buy and serve cooked frozen pizzas at my restaurant. i am a top professional chef" or " i provided key words and the AI created the picture. i just threw some filters afterwards. I am the artist, I created did this."

Sure the AI could be classed as a tool, but when it comes to creative processes, if there is a massive disconnect from the human artist/craftsman (ie he sat back and watched the machine do the work as opposed to using tools) it cheapens the whole thing. Like pieces of artwork made in a factory in china. Sure, it looks like art and its very nice, but its not very valuable. How will it affect the creative arts in the future? We will see....
 
Last edited:
An AI artist is an artist in the same way as a crane operator is a weightlifter.
Or a plane passenger or car driver is a traveler.

C'mon, you can't keep denying mans' creative ingenuity for finding more efficient or safer or expansive ways for doing things.

I had a chat with some Neanderthals. Yeah, they're pissed—one leader Ugg said "dgul nihj kxanq" which roughly translates as:
"You guys are so lucky you invented language, but no way are you real communicators, language is a totally artificial use of intelligence and anything you say from now on is copyrighted to the guys who invented the words you use in it."

Bit long-winded, those Neanderthals :rolleyes:
 
Or a plane passenger or car driver is a traveler.

C'mon, you can't keep denying mans' creative ingenuity for finding more efficient or safer or expansive ways for doing things.

I had a chat with some Neanderthals. Yeah, they're pissed—one leader Ugg said "dgul nihj kxanq" which roughly translates as:
"You guys are so lucky you invented language, but no way are you real communicators, language is a totally artificial use of intelligence and anything you say from now on is copyrighted to the guys who invented the words you use in it."

Bit long-winded, those Neanderthals :rolleyes:
They should have hired you to write the last Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book after Douglas Adams died.
 
it looks like art and its very nice, but its not very valuable
Art has no intrinsic "value" beyond a generous $10 for materials and $X/hour for however long the artist spent making it. So a slow apprentice work might be 'worth' say $250, while an experienced expert's work would have a "value" of around $100.

Price—now, that's different. Price is how much someone will pay, and in the art world is almost totally dependent on expected future pricing. This was most vividly illustrated in the 1990 art market crash when works suddenly became 90% less "valuable".

What do 'Sunflowers', 'Irises', and 'Portrait of Dr Gachet' have in common? They are 3 of Van Gogh's works which set successive world records for art prices back before '90 crash. Note, there was no mention of "value", it was all about price.

Fun fact: Vincent Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime, that's how much "value" his work had—until some influencer decided to pump and dump.

if the Ai created 80%+ and he threw a couple of final touches and filters, i don't believe he can justify it
This argument has been made so many times thru history. One many may know about is when textile workers were up in arms about the new-fangled machines of the Industrial Revolution. It became a serious rebellion which lasted years and has plenty of deaths during public protests. They were called Luddites.

So… did the fact that a cloth pattern could be fed to a machine via punch cards, the machine would then make a garment, and the human would check and pack—does that devalue somehow the garment? Was the garment more "valuable" when a weaver took 12 hours to make it, compared to 12 minutes by machine? Was the weaver somehow a "real" garment maker, but the machine and operator somehow are not?

… … …

Railing against tools and tech is a losing proposition. They will be fully accepted in the future, just like textile machinery and language don't merit a second glance today. Embrace it, employ it, encourage it.
 
Art has no intrinsic "value" beyond a generous $10 for materials and $X/hour for however long the artist spent making it. So a slow apprentice work might be 'worth' say $250, while an experienced expert's work would have a "value" of around $100.

Price—now, that's different. Price is how much someone will pay, and in the art world is almost totally dependent on expected future pricing. This was most vividly illustrated in the 1990 art market crash when works suddenly became 90% less "valuable".

What do 'Sunflowers', 'Irises', and 'Portrait of Dr Gachet' have in common? They are 3 of Van Gogh's works which set successive world records for art prices back before '90 crash. Note, there was no mention of "value", it was all about price.

Fun fact: Vincent Van Gogh sole one painting in his lifetime, that's how much "value" his work had—until some influencer decided to pump and dump.


This argument has been made so many times thru history. One many may know about is when textile workers were up in arms about the new-fangled machines of the Industrial Revolution. It became a serious rebellion which lasted years and has plenty of deaths during public protests. They were called Luddites.

So… did the fact that a cloth pattern could be fed to a machine via punch cards, the machine would then make a garment, and the human would check and pack—does that devalue somehow the garment? Was the garment more "valuable" when a weaver took 12 hours to make it, compared to 12 minutes by machine? Was the weaver somehow a "real" garment maker, but the machine and operator somehow are not?

… … …

Railing against tools and tech is a losing proposition. They will be fully accepted in the future, just like textile machinery and language don't merit a second glance today. Embrace it, employ it, encourage it.
I agree, this just lowers the amount of effort required to make good art, but there's still a lot of knowledge required to make great art.
 
Jan 29, 2020
267
466
2,270
Anyone here tried making AI art?

I have, and I've been doing it for a while. I also paint(not pro by any means). One thing you can't do with AI that I can do with regular mediums, is that you can't create the same painting twice. You can use the same input a 100 times, and you won't get the same result twice, and I am not talking about slight variations. The results are completely different. And this really shows how little control an AI "artist" have over the output. Sure, it looks good, and you can have the AI create something that looks pretty good easily.

Personally, I use it a lot for inspiration and ideas, if I don't know what to paint.

I have an idea for a forum game, but not sure if it's within the rules. Let's make images using AI, and the users guess which game or song or whatever it is. First to get it right posts the next one.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY