After learning blender,and all its tools,combining it with other software to create beautiful images or animations i feel like my knowledge and work is slowly turning into nothing.Dall-e in just two years has evolved so much that it can mimic styles,copy and paste stuff in photos while keeping the lighting,shadow and material information,and of course it can generate even more accurate images.
This takes out all the fun of art,waiting just 60 seconds to have 4-10 images that are almost close to professional illustrations,or photoshop artworks/edits.
I feel like this is no longer a tool in the artistic workflow.
Having used midjourney to create some concept art was fun and all but it still did not feel right.I almost had 50% of the work already done in 60 seconds,to me this doesnt feel like a tool but a cheat.
Its like taking a photograph,adding some painterly filters and calling it a painting.
Aside from the sad stuff it was fun watching the generated shapes and turning them into robot looking figures!
poser was big in the early 2000âs. It gave you a huge library of posable characters and it was really accessible. At the time, there was a lot of hand-wringing about how it was going to put 3d artists out of business. It never happened. simple tools are too limited for real artists.
dall-e and other image generators are indeed powerful and useful, but they will not supplant artists any more than substance painter or z brush. they are a tool like anything else.
I know the media really wants to hype up how AI is going to change everything, but itâs not going to replace real artists. I do think it is a powerful tool for artists to learn, but itâs not like someone who was going to hire an artist will just turn to a machine learning model and get their work done by a robot.
the quality isnât there. It works for some things, but itâs got no idea on others.
Thanks for your comment man honestly,it felt depressing watching your own tool backfiring at you,i agree with you ,its a great tool for early compositions and stuff and it certainly cant replace real artists as you said.Haha love the handshake photo.
And indeed the media is hyping things up in the wrong way.Ai is supposed to help,not destroy,for example the denoising in render engines is AI and helped everyone with rendering speeds.
Again thanks for the comment,helped me clear my mind.
Ahh yeah the Poser panic, I wasnât paying attention at the time but Iâve read plenty about it since. Even in my relatively limited lifespan Iâve seen this exact same panic over and over again. Thereâs always something thatâs on the verge of replacing artists- itâs always âjust a few years away from being perfectâ, and then a few years later, everyone has forgotten all about it. Iâm really looking forward to when people have, as they always do, forgotten about this AI art trend
Character artist was not replaced by Poser.
Nor by metahuman either.
3d modelers are not replaced by photogrammetry.
And photogrammetry are way-way-waaay more ârealâ technology which prove itself pretty quickly. Photogrammetry not the fancy AI software which kind of cool, but create wierd results. AI art look cool? Yes, but its not even close to work maded by concept artists for real projects.
Books are extinct now⌠no now⌠i mean right now⌠in this moment⌠wait it is nowâŚ
A very high number of people saying something like: âWe donât need XY anymoreâŚâ , seems to have somekind of mental health problem because they are talking of there believes in third person⌠or didnât ever worked in this area⌠or try to sell you something⌠(the only / best 3, 5, 10, 20 thing(s) you ever have to do to be successful right here⌠only⌠$ a month).
Ten to fifteen years ago I did some stock photography, having a small portfolio with istockphoto. I wasnât a professional, had a day job, but the standards enforced by inspectors certainly made me a technically better photographer. Then along came the iphone. Impromptu snaps and group selfies became the flavour du jour. More immediate, more ârealâ. Standards dropped, I believe they stopped inspecting uploads even. The market had changed. The real issue with computer generated art is whether most people will begin to prefer it over art made âthe traditional wayâ.
I can see art developing in this direction - an artist creates a set of artworks (or curates a set of other peoples work) and the trains an AI on that set to produce new works, which the artist claims authorship of. A bit like applying a super filter to your work.
In the end all art is a derivative of what has already been done. AI / ML now does automatically what artists have already done since forever: copying good ideas from others. What is changing is that there is no distinctive human artist involved in the AI works, while the results are derived from existing human artwork. It feels unjust when such AI engines are commercialized without the original artists getting at least a small percentage of the proceeds. Itâs like selling stolen paintings, but via a sophisticated detour, so existing copyright laws canât do anything about it. I donât think itâs better than selling NFTs of someone elseâs work.
I guess the upcoming consequences are:
Traditional copyright will become obsolete.
Artists will get less credit and recognition for manual creations, as more and more works will be computer-generated and will become more and more impressive, as they combine the talent of many human artists.
Artists will need to find new ways to monetize their skills, or develop other skills.
As AI / ML + robots will be able to replace every human skill in the future, a basic income for everyone will become more and more necessary.
The history of progress for the past few generations has always been that of increasingly powerful tools and technology. Those who have successfully adapted, have won big. Those who have not, have faded into the background.
I think AI is just part of the story for more powerful tools. It still requires a lot of human input and guidance. Even if AI was perfect, you would still have to guide it what kind of stories and experiences humans find the most meaningful.
Sure, you can build it to produce a lot of crap that sells well. Hollywood has already mastered that craft. Eventually, though, such a thing will wear out and people seek other kind of novelty, which can come only from human experience.
What will probably happen on the short term with Dall-E and the like, that they will be like brushes. Thereâs one for generality, one for backgrounds, one for humans, one for hands, one for faces, one for lighting, one for resolution, one for coherency etc. The artist then applies each of those tools that produces stunning end result.
I think this is a very optimistic point of view. People are still in control, using the new tech as tools as they see fit. However what happens when the works that people are being influenced by, maybe even borrowing from, are works created by AI? I posted a link to an interesting YT video on postmodernism in the off topic forum recently. Worth a look if you havenât already.
Another issue is that the average person has no control over what makes it into our culture. The big studios decide what films get made, and how they get made. Powerful actors will decide what products of AI make it into culture. And then it will become part of everyoneâs reality.
The only thing I can consider is that in the future there will be two kinds of artists. Those who remain at classic and traditional techniques. And those who utilize all of the latest and advanced features in terms of technology and practices.
You can think of the traditional artist as a classically trained piano player, and the EDM producer who just mixes a dozen of samples.
And then you can consider who is the most ASMR of them all (piano player) and who is the most commercially successful (EDM).
So is kinda of the win-lose situation in the end because you canât have both. But the actual point is that the viewers or the audience have the last word in it, they can follow certain artists for a specific reasons.
Average person has never had input into what makes it into our culture. Itâs always been a game of luck, hustle, passion, relationships, right time, right place and talent. Etc. You need something extraordinary to make an impact.
The more you concentrate and industrialize a creative product, the more boring and unattractive it becomes. So Iâm not really worried about big companies in the least. Yeah, they make a lot of money with mass producing shallow entertainment. So what? It does not compete with artistic indie production in any way.
It might be useful to think about another field of human endevour where computers and AI have made significant inroads in recent years - chess. The best human player can no longer beat the best chess AI. Magnus Carlsen (current world champion) described the style of a chess AI that he played a while back as completely alien. He could see no reason for some of the moves made. However current players are always learning from past players, and increasingly current players are learning from AI. Nearly everyone plays against an AI at some time. So future players will be incorporating some of that alien style into their game (if they can work out what it achieves).
Also I get the idea that generated images are alien. Which makes them pointless in many ways.
We have no connection with them and no actual use, other than say curiosity. For example what on earth would be interesting to see a Golum in itâs natural habitat eating a water melon?
Is something like having a glimpse into an alien world that it would never exist and nobody would have the need to look into it.
And also nothing of this uses some earlier designs⌠see Wikipedia: Gollum⌠Itâs just like everthing before 2000 wasnât ever done⌠and he was first mentioned in The Hobbit (published 1937)⌠Or maybe even something newâŚ
Naah melon is far to sweet⌠young bunny are much better⌠for gollum⌠just break their neck and lick their warm blood and eat them with fell and all⌠gollum yes⌠tasty gollum tasty⌠hmmm and fish⌠yeah fish⌠but melonâŚnoo⌠Gollum will choke on seeds⌠bahh and this hurts gollum⌠no noo⌠not goodâŚ
