The Question of the Day is a way to facilitate community discussion to help members ponder the unanswered questions of the world that are somehow relating to the hobby. Questionsj are many times open ended and up to interpretation. Feel free to post your thoughts in as much or as little detail as you’d like.
Helpful Considerations may or may not help some people focus their answer, these are blurred to not bother those who have their own ideas.
Today’s Question:
*QotD: With Ai becoming more prevalent in art, what line do YOU draw on how human art should be? *
Helpful Considerations: CG art can no longer be trusted? Dont care as long as its cute and makes sense? Anything digital is bad? Its on Pokemon to verify an artists skill and integrity?
I think a lot of this comes down to meeting demand. If you enjoy a really good meal, does it really matter who the chef is? Most people care about the end result, not whether it was made by a Michelin chef or a line cook following a recipe.
AI art might end up the same way. It definitely challenges creativity and authenticity, but at the end of the day beauty is still in the eye of the beholder. Things evolve — you either adapt or get left behind.
For example, if I wanted a Charizard UV-ink tattoo that only shows under blacklight, I’d have no problem with AI designing the artwork and even a robotic system applying it. It’s still art to me — just art made with different tools.
Right, it works with patterns right now. I just think tools evolve, capabilities evolve, and what we call “art” evolves with it. What feels limited today won’t stay that way forever.
I would personally consider “human” art only those cases when the AI generated image is seriously re-worked, further elaborated or modified by a human artist, for example:
-an Ai background sketched on top
-tracing an AI scene, but doing all the coloring and character design by hand
-a collage manually done from Ai cut-outs
It’s difficult to draw a line, I would say at least 50% human intervention.
For me as a artist I draw the line at any and all AI, especially now at a time when the AI machines are being trained on any and all images scrounged from the web without compensation, acknowledgement or permission from the artist.
No training this AI machine IS NOT the same as a artist looking at your art and leaning from your style and being inspired. I did not give that AI tech company permission to use my art to train a AI machine that will then use it to generate art for other companies in order to not have to have graphic design artists on their payroll.
I will not support something that undermines artists in a society that is already cutting art from curriculum, after school programs, community centers etc etc. I will not support something that allows companies to use AI in the place if a human artist and they will because at the end of the day all that matters if profit for them and they will gladly replace every human artist with a AI generated crap.
Artists have always operated at the bottom of society unacknowledged as a viable career but readily used by the profit ruling class.
So no I do not see AI as I tool. I do not compare this situation to the same crisis the artist felt at the advent of photography. This and other 3d print things are a direct attack on a whole career and if this direct attack was brought against any other career (trades, lawyers, professional speech writers) it would be largely shut down or at the very least addressed legally.
And yes I know many other professions are under attack from AI and robots in other ways but I do not believe that any other career robbery by AI is so socially accepted and almost encouraged as the theft of a career in art is by AI.
Yah but who decided what’s boring?
It certainly won’t be the artist, and at the end of the day it’s still time and money being taken away from a actual artist and given to a machine.
And how long will it just stay just that?
How long before companies base it off just profits and don’t care that the AI image still can’t spell right or that the perspective is still off or that these colors don’t make quite the impact two different colors together could.
A machine doesn’t know the rules and mechanics foreshortening or perspective, or the color wheel so it can’t replicate to the same standard a artist can. But the people hiring artists don’t care about that. They want it faster, cheaper and to not have to pay someone they for the most part already resent paying.
Cause at the end of the day they already are.
So sad. The harsh truth is that this is a lost battle.
We live in a society that doesn’t value creativity at all, while everyone at the same time wants to be listened and treated like an expert, regardless of their studies, effort or skills. So expect that, in the long run, many will be rooting for the “democratization” of the concept of being an intellectual, an artist or scientist. Your uncle can vibecode his game, generate his pixel art characters and write a philosophical romance now: I personally don’t think they deserve the hate but, yay..
When companies pretend to care, they do so only from a reputation standpoint. They evaluate the general sentiment, and promptly choose the appropriate, strategic position which maximizes shareholder confidence.
Add the fact that workers nowadays have so little leverage and the outcome is clear.
I bet that “Human made art” will be soon used like a cringe quality seal, similar to those “organically farmed” or “Grass fed” labels.
Also, there are already entire generations growing up being fed tiktok AI slop, while the majority of non-tech boomers can’t tell a facebook emoji from a Louvre painting. When it comes to casual people, they seem perfectly satisfied by the artistic value of AI and they’re already unbelievably loyal customers.
Provocative question: Imagine Pokemon announced a next generation entirely AI generated, do y’all think people would seriously boycott it, or (as usual) keep buying the slop?
As a creative that went to school for these sorts of things, I have extremely strong negative opinions about generative AI and its ramifications, with only a couple of exceptions.
I guess you got me wrong here. I totally agree with you. With boring jobs I mean sorting trash or whatever. Machines should be designed to do the jobs we don’t like. But of course in the current system companies will decide against us. Hopefully the audience will learn to recognize the soulless AI stuff.
I completely agree with you. I do think however that there are alot of people out there that think that art is just as boring as filtering trash which is why they have AI do it. (I do not think this)
Unfortunately in their business world its difficult to compete with other businesses without pushing artists for time constraints. They pretty much sacrifice their moral values to profit the company on top of it in some cases.
It makes me wonder if this will bleed into film one day if they can perfect it. I also wonder if the younger generation perceive AI as the norm growing up. I wonder if more younger, modern, artists with talent are using AI with their style and being told its great, and how many upcoming artists struggle in this job field.
My take is that the people who have resorted to Gen AI for art simply do not value art. They never valued creativity. Their mindset is that why should they pay for art when they can generate something “good enough” in seconds “for free”. They either never intended to commission any artist or begrudgingly were paying for their services.
AI era will be kind of over when shareholders want to start reaping some money. AI isn’t cheap.
As for the question, art should be 100% human. Generative AIs have been trained on actual creative images from other artists without consent, and are just mashing garbage together to create something “new”. If they had asked artists for permission, they would’ve gotten a no for an answer. The same companies that fight over patents and over IP violations are now robbing artists just to cut corners. It’s disgusting.
100% anti-AI in the creative spaces. As others have said, artists struggle enough already and are on the bottom of the totem pole. Use AI as a tool to assist in scientific research, to do drug discovery, protein modeling, etc. Use it to do work, not art, if you have to use it for anything (which I am also against).
