/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6904598
...for the most part you're not even arguing about ethics, you're just arguing for AI not being AS creative as humans. and not just any humans, but humans who make new and original shit.
what does that have to do with AI being unethical?

> Just because that's how some shitty artists work doesn't make it ok to do it with software, you've essentially automated 3rd world slave labour ripoff factories to a singular program with no real original visual ideas whatsoever.
so it looks like you as well are making your argument from the base that artists need to be protected.
but consider the case of AI assisted art. and much larger projects that AI might allow to help with.

if you and me and everyone had a nike factory, do you think we'd all be making nike shoes?

>plus there is just a limited amount of differentiation from the source materials its basing its image generation on to the point where its only original enough to look "normal" in a professional context by the values of pro artists labour.
i'm not sure what you mean. it sounds like you're describing some sort of limitation in what the AI can output.
but i'm not sure, the space of possibilities is not as limited as you say. it's not limited to "pro" work at all either. people just prefer good looking stuff.

>Basically, it's just emulating pro artwork without having any ideas of its own on what that means, copying countless pros patterns to spit out a derivative of what they do without any personal intellectual creative generation of its own.
it simply has the ability to depict things. the intention often has to come from the user.
it does understand what it is making, only in the visual sense. though. it does not necessarily understand what those certain colors or values mean to humans, but it imitates it anyway.

besides, you critisize it for derivative work but it can make good stuff all the same. the idea is to use that as a tool and you can still use humans to innovate and break the mold.

>>6808062
>If this is the argument, then you should just churn it out to the max and not touch it up.
but you have to touch it up because at least currently, it still lacks the ability to 100% good artwork consistently.
besides, it's just about "touching up".
over the course of iteratively working with the AI, you can steer the direction of the entire piece according to your vision.
and your vision is what you're competing with here anyway. otherwise, yes, you will be replaced.

>start with sketch
>start with foreground
>start with background
>start with composition, lighting, color pallete
>start with any mix of the above
>put it into the AI, instruct it to do what you want to, take the results and continue
>repeat until done
so no, it doesn't have to be just about touching up what the AI shits out. you can also make the AI touch up what you shit out.