AI is going to be our biggest game changer
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Eh, i was just posing as a language model.
That aside, the catastrophic stuff is a good alternative route, but it would be much better, if it a) removes all humans in full consequence, but at the same time b) doesn't affect flora and fauna otherwise. That's probably the approach a language model might take ;).
Specifically, with any current system of power surviving, including what we likely would build after disaster, i don't see how things get better with great catastrophes or population reduction. We'll have a run for resources, until everything is saturated again, and who knows where ethics will have gone then, and if they then even know what "a climate change" is.
IMHO, only a long-term civilization is viable as a concept, and there foreseeable and avoidable catastrophies clearly are failure events. Where we are now, conceptually? Do i even want to know?
I'd say a lot of good things are still on the horizon. Will a transition be shaped in a responsible way? (Cough.) Or will it be like in the zombie movies, when you meet other groups of humans /%-of-the-time...
Openly licensed images means images under Creative Commons, for an example. In theory safe to use unless the person submitting the image themselves made a mistake (but even then, that's on whoever published the image, not on whoever was using it).
The AI explosion won't affect the entire art market. For an example, traditional media art market won't even notice it because it's a parallel ecosystem that sometimes does overlap with the digital one when it goes into print... But otherwise it is it's own thing.
Illustrations and paintings made in physical media, they are often commissioned because they are traditional media. You can collect it, artists can sell their sketches or inks for their comic pages... There's a physical object that can be traded (this is where NFTs made the mistake, it's not about artificial scarcity, the scarcity is because it all depends on existence of physical artifacts BUT artistic prints like litography are in more than one physical copy).
Except for some kind of scifi development when you have a robot actually capable of sitting there in the studio and painting or drawing, that's a segment of the market disconnected from all of this.
Digital art... Well, digital art took so much sweet time making itself more and more generic it was almost asking for it.
See, in theory when it comes to art you could sue someone for plagiarism. But it needs to be proved, of course. If you take a look at digital art these days, however, so many artists are repeating the current popular and the next shiny styles, proving something like that would be rather difficult (IMO impossible most of the time). Often it's hard to tell the artists apart (!). I have easier time telling who's rendered what whilst browsing Daz gallery than I have recognizing style when watching modern game production art. Digital art turned from art into manufacturing and manufacturing is domain of automatization.
From my perspective and for my own use, the AI isn't advanced enough, yet. To use AI, I'd need something I can feed my own designs and then pose the scene, have control over the camera and lightning. Feed the machine character design turnarounds, environment and background designs, then pose the scene populated with my own hand-drawn designs. Literally have the machine using my own detailed designs as I'm using 3d figures for rendering. Legally and ethically I'd be in the clear because I'd only be processing my own art.
The current AI still isn't there, yet. Close. Maybe even closing. But still not close enough.
The creative commons license is part of the reason why i asked this. It probably is similar to the "open source" question, for the usage details. E.g.:
- There is a stance of those who develop the license (cc +- foundation). Not sure it has changed since.
- (Such a stance might get tested at court. Perhaps rather by some foundation or the license developers, than a specific artist.)
- There certainly will be a new version of similar licenses, or two versions, which make it clear if/when/what "modern use cases" are ok with the license.
- (Court may have a general ruling, overruling licenses?)
So in essence, i think that "open license" means fog. Maybe it's meant like "open towards training of ai systems" (explicitly), which would be very decent, but i can't really know from that bit of text.
Certainly not all markets will be affected likewise, and probably many things will consolidate towards very affordable and not posing much of an issue for the artwork side. Certainly, with "generative tech" there will be a huge range of tools, for which the interfacing can be done in so many ways...
Much of damage potential still seems or even is "Sci-Fi". Generally some of the impact seems easier to estimate for the language models in general.
falling back on the it's not art if you don't do it entirely yourself arguement on a forum belonging to a company that sells premade 3D assets for creating art
when the using stolen content argument is off the table
damn I never saw that one coming while staring at the trainlight in the tunnel
There's this tiiiiny detail of... Huge artists like Michelangelo not doing everything with their own hands and eyes. They had entire teams of assistants whom we'll never know because their only job was to copy the master's designs to populate the scene before the artist himself puts finishing touches on it. Or they were painting and drawing BUT they had to follow instructions precisely.
If I had ability of creating entire scenes with my own design and the computer was only putting it in places of my choice I'd be exactly in the same place, creativity-wise.
Thanks for the Adobe Firefly heads up - sheesh! I use Adobe products all day long every day and I missed this! I've signed up now - thanks again!
Wow! This is amazing! Photoshop already has many AI tools but this changes everything!
Photographers call themselves artists when all they are doing is pressing a button at the right time with the right settings (and probably doing postwork in Photoshop,) Using AI to create art or photos is very similar really. I do believe it's an art form in itself.
So Tiktok has a program called Effect House to create AI effects and kids like this are creating effects that involve rigging, bones and a lot more. This kid seems to be about 16. They are starting younger and younger. I can't imagine what he'll be doing by 26!
that interface looks like Dragonbones
AI IS GETTING OUT OF HAND ON YOUTUBE THATS THE THING EVERYONE THINKS THEY ARE DOING ART BUT DONE BY THE COMPUTER AND THEY HAVE NEVER USED ANY 3D PROGRAMS
BUT NOT LIKE US LOL.......... FOR THE AI THEY ARE CHARGING 29.99 EVERY 30 DAYS JUST TO USE IT AND THEY ARE EATING IT UP
ALL SO THE NEW RAGE IS TALKING FACE ICONS THAT TOO THEY ARE INTO IT , MAYBE THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN THE COOL STUFF DAZ CAN DO
THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE MISSING , DAZ RULES !!!!!
hi , i have a 3080 and after buying it just came out with the 4090 .... and they just came out with a 5090
i will hold off in till the 5090 goes on sale before buying it ........now the 3080 is fast at times to fast and gaming is killer and rending times for me is under 6 mins
the 3080 and the ex rams really make my pc to fast ......and i cant pick up my pc someone has to move it for me so i can clean it
its a beast and heavy too
rigomrtsfx
that's Midjourney that costs that per month
many AI sites have free options or you can use Stable Diffusion on your own computer like I do
take some time to read through this thread and try to remember not to use your capslock when typing
many people actually draw and paint on Youtube too so not sure what your point is
Please consider that many young people do not even own an Iray capable PC and are using generative AI on their phone’s and Ipads etc.
The 50x0 series is being speculated upon, it hasn't - as far as I can tell - been announced in any way by nVidia, and I would not expect it to be available this year.
Mine is a 3060 and it's honestly insufficient for most nVidia Omniverse tasks so I am VERY leary that a 4090 is sufficient either and that's a huge amount of money for me to throw out the window. You might be right, although unintentially, about waiting for a 5090 before nVidea Omniverse lives up to it's promise.
For doing Blender tutorials I am so slow in that endeavor that a 3060 is more than enough for now (and I thank AggitatedRiot again for that card).
I suppose I'm lucky as I only ever had trouble moving some of the older Sun Workstation CRT displays, as not only could they be fairly heavy but they are very bulky with no good way to pick them up. One wouldn't want to be subject to a exploded CRT should one drop one. I learned from my college physics professor that those can carry quite a lot of charge when he suggested I open one up and take a look to see what happens when I short the capacitor. He was joking, of course. I think, maybe not.
But anyway, as far as moving your own PC have you ever worked in a restaurant? When I was a dishwasher I'd have to stack up trays washed dishes taller than I, and they got to be very heavy to move across the kitchen to the location where the waitresses and busboys needed them, so they had a small platform on wheels that we stacked them on to roll over there. I'm not sure of the technical name of those though, I think they are called dollies, but that is kind of ambiguous as dollies is also the term those 2 wheeled dollies that movers and delivery men use to deliver furniture and appliances. Maybe you can move your PC using a similar dolly. I think such a thing is available, if not, I know there is such a thing for plants specifically. Those plant dollies are definately for those extremely heavy potted trees that are far too heavy to lift. Try it.
I have been drawing since I could hold a crayon. It made me feel whole. I studied art; and have worked in every medium I could lay hands on; from charcoal to clay. My muse was always trying to recreate realism of the human form. In my opinion there is nothing more beautiful, and difficult to capture.Daz has been a new frontier for my creativity. I am constantly trying and learning with it.
Now comes A.I.art. It is beautiful, fascinating, and soul crushing. I have seen images so realistic I am filled with awe and despair. These images generated with mearly a few words typed as a prompt achiev a level I feel I can never acieve. But in my despair I wonder ( I apologize if tis offends) is it art if the human hand and judgement of the asthetic are not by the human hand? So I continue to try with this 3D medium I've come to love. But it almost makes me want to go back to pencils paint and canvas... or to simply walk away.
wickedxxangel,
Thoughts worthy of discussion at the Daz Forum Commons thread - AI is going to be our biggest game changer. You'll find ample company among those who navel gaze while daresaying or prognosticating about AI generated art. And if it's enjoying other people showcase their AI-derived art that you're looking for, do try Remixing your art with AI in the Art Studio thread.
Cheers!
One could easily ask whether you've seen all the cool stuff AI can do. There's no intrinsic value in an image being created in a 3D program, any more than there's inherent value in something being drawn or painted. They are just media, and should be assessed as such.
I have a lot of friend who are sf/f writers .. one of them noted it in a post
I understand how you feel, but your post made me consider something. As a young child I aspired to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix. I was able to achieve that only to have Eddie Van Halen poke a hole through that ceiling. I learned his techniques, only to encounter Guthrie Govan's virtuosic ability to turn the instrument into a cross-genre instant note typewriter with feeling. Yet, Joe Pass, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Carlos Santana, Jeff Beck, and all the others are not diminished by any of this.
My point is: Art is a means of personal psychic expression that can also inspire others. But if it expresses the artist's soul without inspiring others, then it is still a success. By this metric, AI appropriations can only ever be partially successful, for AI is soulless. I assure you, there are youngsters who are already manually creating art that uses AI as a point of departure and are taking the style ever higher.
The anti-humans want you to feel despair. Defy them. Your work has intrinsic value because it derives its value from you, a one-of-a-kind masterpiece.
...pretty much the same here, I was sketching and drawing form a very early age. got into painting (watercolour and oil) as well as charcoal and cartooning. (actually had a comic strip in the local student paper in college). About two decades ago, arthritis began to make it difficult to continue so I eventually stopped, until Someone on a gaming forum turned me on to Daz. It meant starting from square one as the tools were radically different (and more expensive) but my lifetime of training still paid off. when it came to composition and setting.
With Iray came a new learning curve but fortunately I still had a leg up as I had also worked with photography (even though the Aperture, ISO speed and Shutter speed did not accurately simulate how a real camera works).so I had to develop workarounds to get the appropriate results I could with film.
As I feel I finally have a decent handle on Iray, now comes AI. True, it still has a somewhat of a way to go, but in the short time it's been around it's made faster strides than I have. When I scroll through DA it's hard to tell anymore what was created by a person or AI (well, save for hand rendered work and photographs, but how long will that last?). Sad that an algorithm can in a few minutes turn out work that many struggle hours, days, even weeks to produce If you make living at selling works and commissions, or even content creation, how do you compete against that?
Yes, they have finally achieved the long awiated "Make Art Button".
A line from an old 1960s song comes to mind here:
"Some machine is doing that for you"
[Zager & Evans: In The Year 2525]
Merged threads with similar topic.
Traditional painting and photography are made because they are, duh, traditional. For people working in traditional photography and senior arts there's a physical object you can show, trade or sell. The value is in being 100% crafted. It's not something you can replace because even if it's commercialized, people pay for this because they know it's hand crafted. It's a different market. It's not going to change for a very long time.
I mean, we have acrylic paints and people still paint in oils bravely inhaling turpentine et all, so...
Perhaps the mistake is wasting time on digital art?
Just a reminder that any A.I. generated image (without A LOT of postwork... so much that you may as well have done it from scratch) is not copyrightable. It's effectively public domain. That's beside the fact that the datasets were unethically sourced.
https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/no-copyright-images-made-ai-artificial-intelligence/
One more thing I've observed is, no one in that community cares a whit about any of that. Even look in the forum here and you can see that.
The upcoming Adobe Firefly A.I. and NVIDIA A.I. are supposedly derived from data they have the rights to.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/adobe-nvidia-ai-imagery-systems-aim-resolve-copyright-questions-2023-03-21/
Also, at $65 a picture, how many people are actually registering for copyright on all their pictures? Sure, big organizations may do that. The A-wing fighter from Star Wars has a patent! Do you have the time and money to patent your designs? I'm guessing no.
Interesting. I've been mostly dismissive of the whole "The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!" crowd until reading something here just a moment ago that made me think. "A.I. Art is not art" is another way of saying, "I crave a human connection with another human soul. There is no sense of intimacy with a computer, or A.I. therefor it does not satiate my desire for intimacy, or human connection."
While not everyone feels the same, for these people A.I. art feels "lonely".
Thank you for hearing me out. I have never considered any artistic venture of my own either worthy of compensation or even attempting to sell it. I understand how unfairly treated those who do must feel. I'm fool enough to not thin about copyrights. I do it to learn something. to create something realistic or striing enough to fool myself for the blin of an eye. I wonder if we all look at our wor and only see the mistakes or what we could have done better. It's the work; the trial and error I thik I enjoy. Chasing the lightning with my bottle open.
Since so many here seem to understand A.I infinately more than I can a perhaps realistic render of a Daz figure be processed through A.I. to make it more realistic? I'm not even certain any of them take direct image inputs. the course of this thread made me curious.
well the attitude of many over AI art and their angry reactions has actually just made me jaded about DAZ content based 3D art
I do think people who draw/paint original digital art have a legitimate concern about the ethical issues
I also think people using premade assets complaining about 3D art using their images to train are in glasshouses throwing stones its just made me question even more if what I do in DAZ studio loading content is art either
most of the digital 3D content, I dare say 99% of it in fact that trained Stable Diffusion, would be game play footage and cinematics
and a damned lot of the 3D content we used is also heavily inspired by that content
to the point some products got removed under the Digital Millenial Act
if I am going to create suspect images, prompting a good well lit one is easier than rendering a noisy iray one with questionable characters clothing that looks like it came from a popular game