Forum - View topicINTEREST: Japanese Art Commission Platform Skeb Bans AI Art
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Greed1914
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||
|
It makes sense that they would go this route. They could end up with a flood of new people with AI programs taking on commissions and diluting the platform. It would also be a major pain to have to deal with customer complaints and possible refunds if someone later found out that their commission were AI generated.
From what I have heard about Skeb, it seems like they are on the ball when it comes to running the platform, so getting out a bit ahead of things isn't too surprising. |
||||||
|
||||||
PipimiOden
 Posts: 202 Location: Pennsylvania, USA |
|
|||||
|
I'd certainly use it if it weren't for the crypto aspects of the program, but it's nice to know they banned ai art at least.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
|
Legitimate choice, but I doubt this will be the solution.
I don't have a high opinion of skeb in general, and that was before they decided to go crypto. |
||||||
|
||||||
Millhi
 Posts: 143 |
|
|||||
|
^They added crypto as an alternative payment as credit card companies started banning the use of skeb depending on where you live iirc. And we all know how much credit card companies love nsfw content.
I don't like crypto either but there's also no other option available to make sure everyone has a chance to request their favourite artist on the platform without getting blocked by some petty companies. It certainly is also a much better implementation that Pixiv who outright don't even want to explore an option after banning credit cards for nsfw content like 5 years ago on booth and their recent pixiv requests. (Fanbox works for reasons) |
||||||
|
||||||
Kitsu Kyouno
 Posts: 170 |
|
|||||
|
So quite useless measure considering that images can be easily changed the format and edited to the point that it is indistinguishable from one made from scratch by a person
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
oilers2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|||||
It's generally better to wait til the kinks get all ironed out before jumping on the new trend or medium. Skeb usually does just that. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
|||||
That's a problem related to "moralization" more or less, but my main with gripe with skeb isn't really that. It's the fact that their terms of use basically say the person who requests the commission has 0 input in what the artist does. I understand creative freedom, but that's a little too much considering there's money involved. In fact, even if it has its own odd quirks, I prefer using Skima. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Millhi
Posts: 143 |
|
|||||
Oh I don't disagree. I'll try to see first if i can request them through dms/emails or such before using skeb (or pixiv or fantia who use the same policy). |
||||||
|
||||||
Vanadise
 Posts: 531 |
|
|||||
Except that AI image generators only produce flat image files, while most artists will deliver PSDs that have multiple layers. It's conceivable that a scammer could make an AI-generated image, work to cut it into multiple layers, and then fill in details to make it convincing... But the whole reason scammers love AI in the first place is because it takes zero effort, so they're unlikely to do that. |
||||||
|
||||||
CrypticPurpose
 Posts: 340 |
|
|||||
And if they are going to put that much effort into editing it, it's no longer really purely an AI-generated piece of art, and more of an AI-assisted piece of art. I've worked as a graphic designer for years now, and I never would have been able to produce the majority of the work I have without tools like Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. It's one thing to pass off purely AI-generated pieces as your own work, but integrating AI tools into your workflow (for inspiration, or even creating backgrounds, say as an alternative to rotoscoping) should not be vilified in my opinion. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AsleepBySunset
Posts: 243 |
|
|||||
I disagree. It should be "vilified", AI "art" is not a tool, and any "artist" who uses AI for any part of there work, including rendering, storyboards and backgrounds should be rejected. The only things in art which I wouldn't care if an AI did, like flats which the artist later adjusted so all the colours were of their own selection... Could already by done without AI technology to begin with. There are plenty of valid things I think AI can be applied to, but none of those should be automating human creativity, this includes writing, game design, concept art, pixel art, etc. I don't have that much respect for the "foreground only" type artists, a background is a mark of a talented artist who pushes themselves to incorporate visual story telling in their work. An artist machine-generating backgrounds would be a disgusting betrayal to me. EDIT: To say what I said in a less loaded way, saying AI generated backgrounds are fine, is the same as saying your okay with automating backgrounds using machine learning technology. For example, you would be absolutely fine with say, P.A works AI generating all backgrounds if they wanted to. If everyone said it like that, I think people would be able to really see the problems with this attitude. Last edited by AsleepBySunset on Thu Dec 29, 2022 2:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Vanadise
Posts: 531 |
|
|||||
This is a bit disingenuous, for a few reasons. One is that there's a vast difference between tools in image editing software and AI image generation. Things like filters in Photoshop are simply automating tasks that you could do by hand; all of them are hand-written algorithms that you could follow like a set of instructions. You absolutely can do anything you can do in Photoshop by hand instead, it'd just take a lot of time and math in order to calculate the value of every pixel on screen. Photoshop is a useful tool because it's fast and convenient, not because it enables you to do anything that would be literally impossible otherwise. The types of AI neural networks that people are using to generate neural networks, on the other hands, are trained by taking tens of thousands of illustrations (or more), often without the consent of the original artists. They "learn" how to generate images by associating certain words and phrases with particular collections of shapes, curves, and colors, and figure out how to connect them together in a way that humans find appealing. That's why models with loose constraints end up generating images that look like an abstract jumble of shapes and colors, while models with tight constraints generate images that are often very clearly copying features from certain artists, sometimes even down to that artist's signature or stamp. Is it conceivable that someday, graphic editing programs might incorporate AI into their workflow in a reasonable way? Sure, but that's not actually what we're talking about here, we're talking about plagiarism that has been laundered through several layers of algorithms in order to create plausible deniability. By the way, before using those kinds of techniques for creating backgrounds (I'm not sure why that would be more ok than character portraits?), you should also be aware that currently, AI-generated images are not protected under copyright law. Anybody who wants to can use any image you generate from a neural network for anything they want, which is another reason why this stuff is poison for any real professionals. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
FiendHunter
Posts: 153 |
|
|||||
|
I feel some people are overreacting to this whole AI art issue. And it's nothing to be surpsed about, this has happened multiple times throgh the history of art. When cameras were invented, people thought nobody would need artists anymore, because cameras were able to produce images. But does everyone who owns a camera is a professional photographer? Certainly not. I think it's the same with AI. Anyboy can generate random images, but if you dan't have the vission and good taste in aesthetics, it's just useless. I do think artists and designers should feel free to use AIs as part of their creation process.What I mean with this, is use it just as any another tool (same as searching through stock images, using somethig as a base, etc.). "Copying" has always been part of art history, even among famous classic painters. This isn't a bad thing, everybody is learning and searching for their own style. Inspiration is not a divine act.
Of course, people just inputting words in an AI program, and claiming images as their artwork (and even making a profit) should be rightufully judged and shouldn't call themselves artists at all. But if you're an artist, you shouldn't be afraid of new techonologies; use them. And if you're not an artist and are just playing around with AIs, please don't be shameless and claim it as your artwork. A for skeb banning AI art (full or partial) well... they're within their rights, I guess. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AsleepBySunset
Posts: 243 |
|
|||||
AI art is not a tool for artists, its a tool for the elon musks, the jeff bezos and the people who want to bypass the process of paying an artist, and ultimately replace artists. It will not only replace illustration, but it can replace pixel art, abstract, photography, graphic design, stock art, motion graphics, 3d modelling, screenwriting, novel writing, poetry, lyric writing, music composition, game design, animation, video, voice acting and more. There's nothing stopping AI from copying any art you create to be challenging, under the illusion your challenging conceptual art can't be replicated by a computer. If you decide to make "AI-enhanced" video games, say a VR world with AI dialogue, the AI will in 10,20,30 years be able to automate the whole process of making that VR world, every single creative genre can be automated. The only reason, if in twenty years AI hasn't replaced all these artistic endeavers will be if artists and storytellers collectively reject the concept the AI art is a tool, the public recognises AI media needs to be stopped, and people collectively work to destroy AI media including art in its entirety. I didn't get into art because I cared about the [expletive] "process" about how "healing" drawing will be. I don't want art to be relagated to mental health and therapy for the rest of my life, I don't want art to become meditation. I wanted people to be able to look at my art, even if only one person and feel something powerful, and soon, if normalised by the "its a tool like the camera" people, all art created for actual human consumption will be entirely destroyn by AI art. The value of all art will go down, not just AI art, because AI can generate an arbitrarily infinate amount of art which is absolutely indistinguishable from human made art.
Any person who attempts to use ai art in their process will get replaced to. If you think you have some "magic artist taste" which will make you select the best ai art, the ai art will learn that this art is the better art as you select to view a specific piece. The AI will automate prompting as well. Also, this idea that non artists have absolute shit taste is just silly. What "normies" like is what many artists actively want to appeal to. I want "normies" to like my art the same way they would like a Ghibli movie. The idea regular people can't just select which piece they like the same way an actual artist can is silly. AI made art prompted by normies will be just as valid as art prompted by actual artists, that's part of why AI art should be rejected.
If you seriously feel "AI art comissions" should be allowed and its a pity they banned it, (based off reading this thread skeb seem to be some kind of comissioning site), then that's mere proof that ai will replace human art comissions if normalised. [/quote] |
||||||
|
||||||
|
FiendHunter
Posts: 153 |
|
|||||
|
AIs are not gonna replace artists. If anything, AI art is gonna devalue, because anybody will be able to produce cool looking images, but if someone wants a specific commission and then wants details to be corrected or added, they still need a real human person working on the concept they have in mind. Traditional art still exists, and AI can't replace that.
On the other hand, I didn't say anything about the creative process having to be painful or sad (I honestly don't know why you're mentioning that). What I said is, you can use AI generated images to help you reach, for example, a composition you have in mind, and then go from there.
And they will? The fact that AI images exist, is never gonna take away the emotions or the message you want to express in your art. People will still be able to be moved by it or analze it, etc. Your human condition will always be captured in your art.
People can have good taste in looking at "pretty" things, but that doesn't mean they're able to replicate them. But maybe "good taste" wasn't the word I was looking for when creating art, so I'll correct that: Sure, people can generate pretty pictures, but if you don't have actual knowledge of perspective, anatomy, color theory, composition, art trends, art history, aesthetics, etc... you're still left with just a pretty image that is lacking in quality and might even look funny when you pay close attentiont to it (and just to be clear, there's already artists who base their art on just being pretty and they're well liked. Everybody puts a different personal value in art).
Sorry if it sounded like that, I don't think it was a pity. I do think however that partially created AI art should be valid as long as you can prove your process. But of course, skeb banning this is completely fine since it's their site and their politics. In general, I don't think AI is gonna destroy art as you seem to imply. Art can have historic value, artist value (some artists are more apprecited than others by society, and their artwork is more valued even if for rough sketches), personal value (people will still have favourite artists because they like what they make). Like I said, all of us can take millions of pictues with our phones, but professional photographers still exists and they're well paid (well, debatable, but they're still valued). Same thing will happen with AI art. I think it's silly thainking it will replace art altogether. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group