AI-generated images are drawing bans from some art communities

Shawn Knight

Posts: 14,464   +171
Staff member
In brief: Online art communities are being inundated with AI-generated artwork, prompting some sites to take measures to slow their proliferation or ban them entirely. Andy Baio from Waxy.org recently chronicled the situation and highlighted several communities that have already taken action.

Last year, Newgrounds banned images created with Artbreeder and recently revised their guidelines to prohibit AI-generated art in its art portal. The site did say that there are some use cases where AI is ok, for example if you are primarily showcasing your character art but use an AI-generated background. In such cases, any elements made using AI should clearly state this fact.

On September 5, furry art community Fur Affinity outlawed submissions created using AI or similar image generators because they lack artistic merit. Five days later, InkBlot added AI art to its list of content that will be removed. The ban applies to art / submissions created using any AI generator including but not limited to Dall-E, Midjourney, and CrAIyon.

AI artwork has been the subject of fierce debate as of late.

Jason M. Allen of Pueblo West, Colorado, recently took home first place in the Colorado State Fair's annual art contest for a piece created using Midjourney. Allen told The New York Times that he made it clear that his submission was created using an AI generator and did not try to deceive anyone.

"I'm not going to apologize for it," he told the publication. "I won, and I didn't break any rules."

Dall-E, the AI art generator from OpenAI, entered a limited open beta back in July. The platform recently rolled out a new feature called Outpainting that can extend an image beyond its border by creating new elements in the style of the original work.

Some of the larger art communities on the Internet have yet to weigh in on the matter including DeviantArt and ArtStation.

What are your thoughts on AI-generated art? Do you feel there is any harm in allowing AI-generated art on popular art sharing platforms? Should it have its own category on art sites or is banning it entirely the right move?

Permalink to story.

 

arrowflash

Posts: 525   +600
"AI art" should have their own category beside the "human" one, problem solved...

The problem is that pretty soon, AI art might become almost undistinguishable from traditionally generated art (I'd say current "AI art" is still partially human generated since you must properly feed the algorithm with the right images and parameters...). Pretty scary tbh.
 

tellmewhy

Posts: 210   +109
Artistic works produced by artificial intelligence algorithms should automatically fall into the public domain without copyright protection (after all, it is not expression originating from personalities with legal entity) because otherwise it will crush the space available for human expression.

A human can produce 1 project per week and just one neural network on a computer (there are millions of computers in the world) can produce billions of projects per hour.
 

ypsylon

Posts: 525   +544
Rebellion is certainly brewing on Deviant Art. DA has its own problems with $hit UI, spam, thieves, pr0n, WIX monetization, but for past 4-6 weeks AI basically has taken over 80% of uploads on front page. People are really bloody feed-up with this. You need to browse like 10 pages to finally see more stuff which is not AI generated.

Anyone who argue that AI art is art fine, put it in separate category and allow every user to filter this crap out. As a person who spend usually about week doing a single piece, "AI generated art" is gangrenous Nurgle infested blight.

How many sleepless nights AI need to finish a piece? How many depression attacks it encounters when working on the clock? Just 2 simple questions to those folks who say soulless machine algorithm is an art.
 
Rebellion is certainly brewing on Deviant Art. DA has its own problems with $hit UI, spam, thieves, pr0n, WIX monetization, but for past 4-6 weeks AI basically has taken over 80% of uploads on front page. People are really bloody feed-up with this. You need to browse like 10 pages to finally see more stuff which is not AI generated.

Anyone who argue that AI art is art fine, put it in separate category and allow every user to filter this crap out. As a person who spend usually about week doing a single piece, "AI generated art" is gangrenous Nurgle infested blight.

How many sleepless nights AI need to finish a piece? How many depression attacks it encounters when working on the clock? Just 2 simple questions to those folks who say soulless machine algorithm is an art.
Well see it as a win then, for the average commissioner AI will look the same like human art and you can have your sleep back.
 

Kazkas

Posts: 25   +66
Rebellion is certainly brewing on Deviant Art. DA has its own problems with $hit UI, spam, thieves, pr0n, WIX monetization, but for past 4-6 weeks AI basically has taken over 80% of uploads on front page. People are really bloody feed-up with this. You need to browse like 10 pages to finally see more stuff which is not AI generated.

Anyone who argue that AI art is art fine, put it in separate category and allow every user to filter this crap out. As a person who spend usually about week doing a single piece, "AI generated art" is gangrenous Nurgle infested blight.

How many sleepless nights AI need to finish a piece? How many depression attacks it encounters when working on the clock? Just 2 simple questions to those folks who say soulless machine algorithm is an art.

You don’t get it.. it’s users/buyers who drive the whole Art world, not just artists per se.. I mean, art has a bigger value (than just individual satisfaction of the creator for creating it) only because it means something for the “consumer” - is it some emotional value (if somebody values all the hard work the creator did) or most of the time, just because they like it.
And why cannot I like picture generated by AI (esp. if I don’t know that fact.. or even contrary - even more fascinated by the fact it was AI generated… like it was with Theatre Opera Spatial for me)..
Also, nobody argues that for ex. Rubén’s paintings are more valuable than Pollock’s only because it (probably) took more time for him to draw it…
And finally, it sounds like argument that digital art is not art.. you cannot touch it, cannot feel the texture, cannot smell it.. but it’s still art, isn’t it?
 

poltevo

Posts: 45   +27
All these image generators suffer from the same fundamental problem: they use millions of images without permission. It’s flagrant copyright abuse while also competing against those same artists whose work was used to feed these generators. This is a major issue which often gets overlooked in favour of discussions about what is “art”.
 

vvtunes

Posts: 12   +10
As someone said here, a.I. art just needs to have its own category and be priced accordingly.
Now.. the real problem is how to distinguish it from human made art? Maybe by gathering some biometric information then stored as metadata next to the artifact to prove its origin. The same principle applies nowadays to biometric signatures.
That would work until the day we finally have 'robots' that can mimic every human paint stroke or drawing, virtual or physical :D
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 454   +772
A machine does what it is programmed to do. Humans act on very random acts of emotion and instinct and every human is biologically and intellectually different. No machine could ever duplicate a human. They can only "appear" to act human based on the programming.

I don't think your AI will ever ask to see a doctor about depression, love, etc.
 

merikafyeah

Posts: 357   +339
When it comes to art, how much effort went into it has never mattered to me and will never matter. The only thing that matters is whether I like it or not. Just like how much effort went into a dish doesn't matter if I don't like the taste compared to something I could get in the frozen foods section. If AI generated music sounds good then all the better for me.

In the end it's all enrichment to make my life more pleasurable. The source is ultimately irrelevant.
 

Revolution 11

Posts: 235   +329
Well, it is probably a good idea to separate AI art into its own category just for usability's sake if nothing else.

I still think humans have a long-term role in making art because until we get a truly self-intelligent fully sentient AI that can understand creativity and how to make new forms and styles of art, AI will never drive art to new heights and only serve as a good reiterative copy machine.

When we do get that type of AI, we will have much bigger problems or questions to answer than the question of "what is art".
 

Hodor

Posts: 251   +182
Art is an expression of the artist's feelings, it's ridiculous to call it art

Yeah, but how do you know computers don't have feelings? After all, our feelings are just flow of electricity and shouldn't really exist. But they do.
 

Hodor

Posts: 251   +182
I'm sure there's a NGO that will call this a violation of basic computer rights.
Computer Art Matters!!
Calling all the laptops on a protest march this Friday. Just unplug yourself and leave.
 

letsgoiowa

Posts: 101   +187
Artists are just salty they're being replaced by superior alternatives. Obviously people really like the AI art and it can be much better than what humans can put out.
Many examples here can still evoke more than what a typical human artist can do. The only difference: I just need to be creative in my prompt engineering to get a high quality output.
What's that expression again? I think it was "learn to code."
 

WhiteLeaff

Posts: 57   +66
Even if you can't call it 'art', you can still call it 'beautiful'. What else matters in the end?
I think you and the people above should first understand what art really is, and what really adds value to art. Real art has historical, cultural and sentimental weight. Gaining recognition takes a lot of sweat and effort, some artists only gain recognition at the end of life or after death.

"AI Art" is just random stuff with no artistic value. You are free to like it, but don't call it art, it never will be.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,517   +2,259
All these image generators suffer from the same fundamental problem: they use millions of images without permission. It’s flagrant copyright abuse while also competing against those same artists whose work was used to feed these generators. This is a major issue which often gets overlooked in favour of discussions about what is “art”.
If for no other reason but to spite copyright-floggers I will unconditionally support AI-generated art. Because the system is a disaster and until it is thoroughly reformed and/or replaced (with zero input from the likes of Disney) it's going to continue to crush the people it purports to protect and impoverish the public domain.
 

poltevo

Posts: 45   +27
If for no other reason but to spite copyright-floggers I will unconditionally support AI-generated art. Because the system is a disaster and until it is thoroughly reformed and/or replaced (with zero input from the likes of Disney) it's going to continue to crush the people it purports to protect and impoverish the public domain.

The vast majority of the media that informs these models are created by normal people, not massive corporations. If you want to spite copyright-floggers then you can easily target Disney, but using a media generator is completely indiscriminate.