/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

I am uronucally seething.

As a digital artist, I'm majorly concerned. AI art is by no means perfect, but there is a difference of quality observable only to the trained eye. Pixelart, for example, has been the subject of many automated tools and filters, which will see a huge positive reception on most social media platforms. The average user just can't see the quality difference and will happily consume it. This "good enough" mentality is what is driving mass markets, and I don't think there is a genuine majority desire to see well-made content or craft.

The same applies to digital art and oil painting, watercolour etc. People who haven't studied it won't know or care that it's not possible to make certain shapes or interactions in the medium, or that the lines that the AI was trained on were used specifically to highlight something or make a comment. There is a growing desire for mediocre content driven by a need to consume which will see the significant reduction of art as a job.

Further, it really upsets me to know that content I have provided to the internet at large to advertise my skills is being weaponised against me to bootleg my own hard work. The alt-text we provide alongside our images to make our work accessible and available to the google search algorithm has been taken and used as training data without our consent. Now anyone can create content with the result of my decades of research for any purpose. They can use it to promote things I fundementally disagree with and would never accept money for, let alone do it for free in the space of fifteen seconds.