Source (Tumblr), alternate frontend.
The person draws something on computer, uploads picture to the auction house to earn money. After upload computer shows list of people that have similar style of the drawing. All money from your drawing will go to those people.
That’s youtube.
Someday I want to commission an artist for some game assets or an album cover, I just haven’t made anything good enough yet
Holy fuck I just realized I can comission wallpapers 😃
Whether I can afford it is a different matter entirely
As somebody who commissions art this would fucking rule, actually.
Imagine if computers did this with math. Same thing.
The problem isn’t that computers do work for us. The problem is that we’re violently coerced into serving capital or starving to death at best.
The effort and ingenuity put in to make computers do maths correctly and helpfully is incredible and immense; the way people use computers in original ways to solve incredibly complicated problems is and should be applauded, but the computer also just does exactly what it was told. Given infinite patience and concentration the computer is unnecessary.\
AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new. Setting aside the ethics of generators taking credit for work done by others (which is still unethical even outside a capitalist society), it just doesn’t create anything interesting or worthwhile because almost definitionally something better already exists.\
Also to counter another argument I have heard before that human artists are ‘trained’ on other people’s art too and often don’t credit them. Humans also have innumerable experiences in their life that contribute to everything they think and do which, as chaotic systems go, is pretty good at finding a new path not taken.
Strongly disagree on the “AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new” part. Are collages new? Is new music new if it uses pre-existing chords? Is parody new?
Unless you think AI just copies/pastes existing art like Google image search (it doesn’t), the things that AI creates is new.
As a couple people pointed out, I don’t literally mean it can’t generate pixels in a sequence it hasn’t exactly seen. What it can’t do is make art with an original take/message/meaning. It doesn’t have the accumulated life experience of a person and so can’t produce something that takes that and represents it in its art.
My unsolicited opinion as an artist of a few different media.
Good art communicates emotions and feelings of the artist to the audience through its medium. Parody is “new” when it takes an original artist’s message, and responds with another artist’s absurd take.
Without emotions or feelings, a computer just wings it, and tries to simulate it. It’s like receiving a message from an insincere person - maybe pretty but ultimately shallow and hollow.
In the future, computers will be better at faking it. However, I think that will make real art from humans more valuable, not less.
It might be new, but it isn’t “art”, at least not by my definition.
Math, fot the most part, isn’t a reflection of human psyche valued for the human connection and a shared soul.
It can be in a lot of places, but usually isn’t.
Ok but this is also an Ai that I would pay a 10 dollar subscription towards just to not have to hunt down what artists are taking commissions and managing prices and everything within the freelance space. I know it will never happen but God it would be nice not spending 10 hours finding an artist I like who isn’t wait listing forever.
the basic problem is to have all artists who are available for commissioning announce it in one place and in a consistent way.
so it’s impossible.
Wouldnt asking people to submit artists they know and to track those work if there are enough people?
“getting enough people” is always the problem. it’s why so many artists are still on twitter.
deleted by creator
well, that is honestly a good use of AI scraping, to find disparate promotions and combine them
no use of ai scraping is good. now, normal scraping is useful, but not to get current information.
Looks like we found a potential use for AI that is not only ethical, but actually useful to.
Honestly Im willing to bet you could do something like this right now. I’m going to ask chat gpt for something similar.
The only downside is that I think SEO will matter even more when going through an AI which is already a bane on online artists.
Why would you use a whole ass LLM for this when a search engine from 2002 could do the job?
have you evaluated any of these answers
Hey I’m not here to go to bat for the accuracy of LLMs, it just struck me as something that would get the result from these engines. I poked at the first couple. All the links are broken, they all lead to bad Google maps directions but googling the people in the results takes you to the websites where you can commission from them successfully. I didn’t check them all but a few of them work.
Nikolas Towers art looks awesome
turns on phone
goes to the clock app to set an alarm so I can wake up in the morning
phone sends a push notification of names and contact numbers
“Siri what is this?”
“It’s a list of knocker ups you can hire to wake you up and are looking for new clients”
Knocker ups’ comment on this story: “This is a horror story to a techbro and a feel-good comedy to anyone with a sense of human decency”
( from reddit )
In all seriousness though, I wouldn’t pay money to look at pretty pictures. If I wanted an image but AI didn’t exist, I wouldn’t commission anyone. The image that I want just simply wouldn’t exist.
What’s the point of you posting that analogy? What’s the point of your current comment?
The point is that there is a niche that isn’t covered by commercial artists that AI image generation fills quite nicely, and complaining about it is like complaining that you no longer phone the operator to connect your telephone calls.
What niche?
moodboarding, design concepting, D&D scene setting/ npc portraits, making stupid images of friends that would used to mean 40 minutes of photoshop (and not everyone knows how to photoshop)
No-one would bother to pay an artist for any if that, you would either copy images from the internet, do without, or try to do it yourself. AI has just massively lowered the skill barrier for doing it yourself.
art commissioning has always been interesting to me, because i don’t understand it. like, not from the artist’s perspective obviously, they want to get paid.
personally, i’ve never thought “i would like some art”. i can appreciate and critique art, and i can compare works to give preference to one over another. but i’ve never been able to describe a nonexistent piece that i do want.
but people have obviously been doing this for hundreds of years. so… am i broken?
It’s quite common with tattoos, right? Unless you’re getting flash or “omakase” tattoos, you can describe a concept to the artist and they’ll design something for you.
maybe? i don’t really understand why you would want a tattoo either.
Others have mentioned gifts and roleplaying games, but also businesses need art. Clip art, logos, decorative stuff. There’s always something delightful about finding small stores that do window murals, or novelty gas stations, or just stores that take some extra considerations for aesthetic.
Eg - part of Buccee’s is that beaver logo. It would not be the same at all without that logo and the beaver statues.
corpo art is another deal though. nobody wants it, it’s just required.
For sure it’s “required” - but sometimes “want” does enter the picture. A lot of classic Americana and Route 66 aesthetic was motivated to sell people shit, but it’s also pretty fun.
I usually make my own art, but I did commission a unique piece as an anniversary gift once. It was in a style that I can’t replicate, featured my and my partner’s silhouettes, and was created by a friend.
Otherwise, I don’t care much for decorations that aren’t practical. I’m more of a “useful clutter” type than a “useless decor” type. Ever since I was a kid, I was confused by the concept of playful-looking decorations that you can’t play with, like those silver ball things that my grandma decorated her garden with (what do you mean, “I’m not allowed to throw them”?) That feeling never went away. So as an adult, most “decorations” I own today have other uses, including various “stim toys” that I encourage guests to pick up and play with.
I am the exact same way. Growing up, whenever I would see some sculpture, or something like that, I would always ask “What does it do?”. Then I would be told it’s art and I’d go “Yes, but what does it DO?!”. If there was no answer beyond just sit there to be looked at, I was instantly uninterested. What do you mean it doesn’t do anything? Someone spent a lot of time making this and you’re telling me it doesn’t even move, or make noise, or anything? You can’t even climb on it, play with it, or touch it? What’s the point?
The point is, the artist has an idea and their to use it to communicate something to you. Does the art make you feel anything other than frustrated? Usually I try to figure out what the artist was saying with the piece.
It’s also possible that the artist did not do a good enough job in their communication.
I was in a similar boat until I found some uncommon style I liked. I still haven’t commissioned anyone yet, but that’s mostly because I can’t seem to find any agreed upon terminology for all but the most mainstream of art styles, let alone anyone that is consistently good
Try playing D&D, and you’ll want to commission art.
i’ve done that for years.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is something I’d love to see, I’ve generated some things I’d like to find real artists that do similar stuff so I can put it on the wall
I am digging your pitch for a reverse black mirror!
Wouldn’t that be called White Drywall?
Yes, by all means let’s keep art reserved as a privilege for those who can afford to hire artists. Impeccable moral purity there, Watson!
There are literally millions of pieces of art everywhere that are free or basically free to view and in many cases use for whatever your heart desires. This is about not getting exactly the piece of art you want to see created and as it turns out there is another alternative open to those without the money to pay artists.
And how does it benefit artists if I search through those millions of free things instead of using a tool to make exactly what I want? I mean, I also built my own deck, drywalled and painted most of my house, changed the plumbing and wiring, put on roofing… I can’t even think of all the things I’ve done instead of hiring somebody. And I learned it all by imitating professional work. Does that make me evil? Did I “steal” from them? Should I not be allowed to own power tools because they take work away from craftspeople?
But now there is a way to get “exactly the piece of art you want to see created” for free with little effort. Are you saying I should just pretend that doesn’t exist?
I guess it depends on intent.
If you’re just conjuring images for your D&D game with your buddies, so what.
If your intention is monetizing and selling it, then that’s probably a problem.
It’s not better to keep artists work reserve to anybody who can pay for it as opposed to just stealing their work?
False dichotomy. You call what AI does “stealing” but I don’t, I see it as the same process we all use when we learn an art, skill or a craft. We spend years looking at examples of other people’s work and (in your terms) “stealing” something from them. And no, I don’t think that’s wrong. Stealing is where you take something and the other person doesn’t have it anymore. Stealing is wrong, but mislabeling something as stealing doesn’t make it stealing.
Or… Learn how to draw?
I’ve tried and the results are pathetic.
You’ve tried, yes, but have you learned? Practiced? People don’t automatically know how to draw. They practice for years. Give it a few more thousand tries.
In the meantime in the programming corner of the internet:
Our code. 🤓
I care about these wanks as equally as I care about all the wanks involved in making motion animation, musical art, nft’s, or any other bullshit without inherent value, I’m gonna consume and use however tf I want. “This computer can create things using reference material that includes my thing, omg, wtf, I can’t handle it!?!? Screeeeee”
Bunch of idiots
motion animation, musical art, nft’s, or any other bullshit without inherent value
If you think that music and cartoons have no inherent value, I guess it would make sense that you’d settle for AI slop. No accounting for taste.
I’m guessing you don’t ascribe to the labor theory of value?
Alright dork
Yes art should be gatekeep for the wealthy. If you’re poor and don’t have time to learn how to draw, then fuck you buddy, my elitism is more important than your basic enrichment.
don’t have time to learn how to draw
You know, it’s not hard if you don’t think art = anime girls or hyper realism. That’s what it seems like all AI bros think art is, though, so that’s why we so often hear this strange non sequitur.
I like how you characterize broke people who can make things as “elitists” against the venture capitalist fantasy that works on plagiarism, and will be yanked from your hands once they stop pretending it can be profitable.
But the whole point is someone has an idea in their head that they want to actualise into reality. They can even spend years learning an artform to be able to produce it themselves, pay for someone else to do it, or they can get a computer to do it. No matter if that’s an anime girl or a Cubist landscape or surrealist self portrait. So if someone doesn’t have the time to spend learning or the money to pay someone, then either they use a computer or they can express their creativity at all.
I like how you characterize broke people who can make things as “elitists” against
No, you are purposefully misrepresenting what I’m saying. Artists are not elitists. It’s people who want to restrict what tools people are allowed to use to create art because they view it as not real or lesser are the elitists.
And no I’m not singing the praises of venture capitalists either, but I can see how imagining that would make it easier to dismiss what I’m saying.
works on plagiarism, and will be yanked from your hands once they stop pretending it can be profitable.
That’s the great thing about AI is once it’s trained you can just download a local copy of the model and run it yourself and then they can’t take it away from you. I have a deepseek model on a raspberry pi to work like an echo, but without giving Bezos all my information.
The fundamental problem is that your AI model was trained on the art of those that did not consent for it to be used for that purpose. In the most charitable sense, AI art can be understood as a type of college or sampling style, and I don’t think I’ve seen many examples of appropriately ethically trained models.
I find it hard to be empathetic to the plight of “I have an idea, and it’s hard to bring into fruition!” That cycle of frustration/desire and occasional hopeful release is part of the eros that gives art its purpose.
Here’s a shitty sketch of a chicken in the backyard of a place I used to live:
I’m not a good sketch artist. That picture is not what I would make if I had the magic art machine that printed the depictional[1] image I want to see. But to me, the sketch’s purpose is more an attempt to capture a quiet morning where the world felt timeless. The chicken is dead, the way I sketch now is maybe better in some ways and worse in others, but there’s a dialogue and growth and process that does not come from downloading a model.
You are trying to weave something from the electric sheep - human creativity tokenized and quantified in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the beauty and purpose of “art” in the way I see “AI art” being used. The reality is the porn spam and the generic fantasy - phantasms that have no use beyond the brief moment they are looked at.
[1] If you are looking for abstract - water marbling and collage don’t really have the same kinds of immediate “barriers” to entry in terms of technical precision. Paint flow techniques are fun and mesmerizing, regardless of whether you “know what you are doing” or not.
The consent thing is pretty much a myth.
Most people don’t bother to think what licence they are publishing their art under when they upload it to the internet. It’s almost always a creative commons licence or something similar that allows anyone or at lead the company that owns the website you are uploading it to, to use that image for whatever purpose they fit. Which includes training AI models.
And I’m sure you’ll disagree with this point, but when a human uses an image as a reference or inspiration, or even just views an image and subconsciously recollect it when creating their own art, do they ask for permission to do so?
I don’t really like to engage in esoteric arguments like these because the “purpose” of art is entirely subjective. So to you that cycle might be the purpose of cresting, to others it won’t be.
I’m not trying to weave electric sheep or anything that effect. I’m using tools that are available to turn the product of my creativity and imagination into a material thing in the real world. Sometimes that’s with a pen and paper, sometimes it’s a camera and editing software, sometimes it’s cloth and stich and sometimes it’s with a bit of software and a mouse, and sometimes it’s with a more advanced piece of software and a keyboard.
Drawing a line in front of that last one and saying it’s not valid or immoral or not real art is very much arbitrary and I remember many years ago people making similar arguments to draw the line in front of using any computer program. AI is simply a tool that you can use to create art just like any other, it makes art widely more accessible and easier to produce than ever before, yes that means some people will use it to make slop, just like digital art and photoshop and cameras allowed more people to make slop and things that don’t have “use” beyond advertising or spam or whatever (frankly the idea of art needing a “use” is a bit antithetical to what I think the point of art is)
So basically I think there’s no real argument to why people are drawing a hard line in the sand here and decaying anyone and everyone that uses AI as inferior or lazy or something to that effect other than those people being scared of change and wanting see themselves and the thing they like as superior.
Can you show something you have produced? If you feel that what you are doing is a good example, then please, I’d love to see someone do AI art right.
Unfortunately, I take consent as a pretty axiomatic principle. When someone uploaded pictures of their art 20+ years ago, they did not know that this type of technology existed. There are ample examples of AI art reproducing things like signatures, which also indicate something that’s a bit more than “looking at an image for inspiration.”
I’ll believe AI is a tool for art just like any other when I see it I guess. Most of what I see is that kind of generic guff - the equivalent of those mall t-shirts with gangster SpongeBob or like that kind of lion/wolf thing on them. I’m not seeing evidence of any of the ideas of the author. I can’t see a prompt like I can see a brush stroke - I can’t try to imagine what the process was like other than stringing a bunch of words together until some permutation looks “acceptable” enough.
I can guarantee you can buy art for less than food if you really want to.
But your problem isn’t with elitism, it’s with capitalism that prevented you from learning a basic human skill.
Yeah and a lot of people can’t really afford food right now, do they not deserve an easy and free way to produce the art they want?
If they can’t afford food they can sell their gaming computer they’re using for a local model. Or they can pick up real art as it’s a cheaper hobby than AI art.
You can access chat GPT from a public library computer.
And that access comes with a cost higher than food and prevents millions from accessing food in the future.
Library cards are free.
Yeah, it’s called ‘go buy fucking art supplies and learn yourself.’
Why are you entitled to ‘art?’
If you want something, learn to make it yourself, or better yet, find a way to pay someone to make it for you.
Because art is a fundamental part of the human experience. No matter how you want to produce it.
And people that want to limit how you create things or what you’re allowed to create are just elitists.
TIL asking you to actually create art instead of prompting it, is elitist.
🙄
Who exactly do you think is selling commissions? It’s not the wealthy conspiring to keep down the working man, it is the working man. It’s starving artists who are one bad life event away from financial ruin. If you want art and can’t afford $50 (sometimes much less), then maybe go without it. You don’t exactly need it to live.
$50 is a LOT for any of the local art I’ve seen.
I often buy already finished pieces instead of commissions but still… Most artists hardcore undercharge… Me included
Yeah I know, and I do infact comission artist myself semi-regularly. But this is still just justification for gatekeeping art away from poor people.
This is such a bad faith argument, AI does nothing but enrich the wealthy, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn to create, you’re intentionally ignoring the root cause here.
I’m not, believe me I’m a card carrying member of my countries communist party.
But unfortunately capitalism isn’t going away anytime soon (hence why artist ask to be paid comission instead of just producing art for arts sake) so we have to live with it and do the best we can with the situation we have. And part of that is not trying to make art less accessible because of kneejerk reactions to something new.
I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just owned up to that you don’t care and you just want to use it instead of whining about reactivity and some nebulous concept of accessibility.
But it’s both.
People should be free to create art however they want with whatever tools they want without people harassing them for it.
And it’s also made art objectively more accessible.
I volunteer once a month to teach a computer science class at an after school club for kids with disabilities. And when I showed them AI generation and let them play with it on their own, they are ecstatic and I’ve never seen them happier the whole time I’ve been going there. Some of those kids can barely hold a pencil and can’t even draw a stick man, then suddenly they’re making comic strips, or there own Marvel OCs in a high fidelity that they would be physically incapable of reaching on their own. Those kids have vast wells of creativity and this technology allows them to express that, and I will defend it against anyone for that reason alone.
I get the arguments against it. I hate the spam of AI slop too, but being staunchly against the technology itself is nothing but eleitsm.
The technology is used to separate art from artist. How it is being used is inherently problematic. The tool is problematic. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn’t make it any less true.
There are myriad ways for children to create and enjoy art. Punching a text string into a machine that vomits out stolen work is not art.
Let me get this straight: you’re a “communist”, but you want working class people to suffer so that you can have a luxury? Okay…
No.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
For second I want working class people to be able to produce whatever art they want however they want, without houlier-than-thou elitists telling them they can’t.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
See definition 2a. Art is a luxury.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.
Except to achieve that joy, you have to steal from people who have to actually work. Gen AI is designed to plagiarize the work of artists for the sake of replacing them. You aren’t siding with the workers, you’re siding with the parasite class.
Edit: screenshot with less clutter.
because of kneejerk reactions to something new.
You have drunk the koolaid, my friend.
What’s the end game here for the poor person who is too busy to have hobbies? They should work more to afford Generative AI art? Make it make sense.
Probably to find the small joys in life.
You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don’t want to.
Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?
At our library we teach people how to do art, including crochet. If the person is able to go to the library then they aren’t being gatekeeped from learning art.
My alternative? AI art isn’t even art so at this point we’re just debating what is a better skill: crafting or prompting.
Art should
notbe enjoyed by everyone, not just the wealthy, but devaluing the skilled labour and creativity of artists isn’t how we get to that. My beef with generative AI isn’t just the impacts on artists, but also the fact that these systems are reinforcing the same upwards flow of wealth to the ultra-rich. That is to say that AI enriches those who are profiting from depriving many of basic enrichment.Whilst I disagree with the sentiment of your comment, I appreciate your acknowledgement of access to art as “basic enrichment”. That much we can agree on.
Edit: struck through a mistake
Art should not be enjoyed by everyone,
Blatant elitism.
That was a mistake. I rewrote that first sentence a few times and accidentally wrote the opposite of my intended meaning. I have edited it now, but thank you for highlighting the error
Survival takes priority over enrichment. There’s nothing elitist about survival.
