How To Handle, Or Should I Even Bother?

What are the formal "rules" for your art group?
What are the accepted conventions?

Sorry , need to rush, will add more later.

It depends on the situation.

Right now i'm messing with AI - i'm calling it digital art, calling it AI messed me up on one site. If they are arguing with you, then point out how you know it is. But this is the same problem as i'm a painter, but its clearly a photo with a filter over it. In general i'm just ignoring it now. I know one person that clearly is doing AI, but calls it a painting, where he suddenly got good over night. But I recognize the lora he's using. I just have to roll my eyes and move on.


----Mike Savad

Do they just say “painting”, or say a medium like oil or watercolor? Asking what medium it is might be a question, if you were to ask.

Maybe some just don’t get the distinction or problem so much in a description and just put “painting?” It shouldn’t be misleading.

Asking might make them think, or nudge their thinking, or realize. Maybe.

But then saying it’s an oil painting or such when it’s not..

Cynthia,

I agree with your assessment of AI. The copyright office has been clear on that. It is not just someone's opinion.

The heart of it, what is the site's policy on AI?

Medium for writing and others elsewhere are putting AI in other categories or not allowing it.

There is a growing backlash to AI. Oddly there is a growing acceptance of AI. It is not just one or the other.

The backlash is not just stuck in the mud. The acceptance is lukewarm. There are also incredible pieces of AI art.

If the terms of the site allow you then you are in the right to say what you think on the topic. If not well we here really do not get a say on this.

There is a commercial problem with AI becoming present. It is early going and there are other factors but some clients are now avoiding AI image dumping. That might be cheap talk but site-to-site results with those who ban or restrict to category AI images have different sales results. Again that can not be proven by me and could be balderdash. Or could be balderdash next year. Things change. It is a revenue risk. I think that has been clear for now.

There is a growing redesign of our function and health as human beings with a limit on tech. That could be a fad but people want limits in their lives on how much technology. It is not just AI. It is all the options we have that can not be used but come our way for us to endlessly refuse. Refusing tech is a muscle most of us keep building and possibly for the better these days.

The reason it is not a fad people are looking out over the years to how much work is involved in accepting every technology they get offered. It is not just one phone call looking for messages. It is years of work.

Well the rules say "no AI" and that you should post process pics and descriptions if you want comments or critique. There have been discussions of AI there so the members know well what it is.

This person has said "painting" and also "digital painting" on their posts.

These days on any serious art site you have to have process pics or you'll get accused of claiming AI images as your own. I'm a member of a few illustration groups and professional digital painting groups and they're all very hard line about it and call it out all the time.

But not this particular group. It's mostly 40+ painters (oil and acrylic, a few digital) and I think they either don't know it's ai because they think everyone will follow the rules, or they know something I don't about this person and they're letting it slide.

I have learned the hard way to be polite. Sometimes it is not being rude and people quietly think I am glad she said something not me. Or he. etc......another it feels like it is never-ending.

Just me....really just me....the worst experience I totally avoided early on in 2014 was joining linkedin art groups. I thought who the H are the critics? Why would they have the nerve to speak? I was totally new but would not bow to them. I was not going to parade for them to inspect. I do not paint at all but had another worth. Not a better worth another worth. For the critics in a group to get their noses up was not on. I thought over the emotions involved. The emotions were not healing for the critics either. Besides I would have torn them one so bad.

I guess you could ask them to explain their process and see what they say.

What I have found is, its really easy to gaslight yourself into thinking you did actually make it. Part of it is your words that made it. But part of you thinks you could be a painter.


----Mike Savad

Is there a possibility this person starts with an AI generated base image, then does further processing work with a digital image editing / painting program like Photoshop, Painter or Studio Artist to add digital paint effects? If so, perhaps that why they consider the final product more of a 'painting' produced by themselves rather than just a straight AI generated output?

If you are the Group Admin it is your group to do as you see fit. If the member doesn't abide by your rules than simply delete the member.
If it's not your group and you only participate then just leave it alone and move onto something more constructive. It really isn't worth the self-inflicted heartache.

JMHO!

Dave, that's how I feel.

What if this person has limited physical ability or an illness, and this is how they create and connect? I have a hard time not seeing a lie as just a lie and therefore wrong, but I feel strongly about being compassionate. It may be an intentional lie, but even if it is... wouldn't it ultimately sort of be it's own punishment?

Mike, the psychology is interesting!

Richard, Agree completely.

Philip, I know people that do that, but this is straight AI, maybe with a enlargement filter. If someone was going to overpaint they'd probably address the glaring AI quirks.

Philip without see any of the work it is possible. It sounds like a dog's dinner. LOL

Cynthia, I have no clue about the person. It might be good to go as in ignore the rules. So what?

We all ignore a rule here and there. That is a problem with a purity test. That is a problem with restricting AI as well.

It might be hurting some sales sites. Crazy stuff. None of it belongs to anyone to top it off.

Dave, never heard my portfolio described as a dogs dinner before, but I don't mind, as I like it :-)

LOL if dogs have money you have it made. LMAO

I would worry about the abstraction process. But I'd have to see it to believe it. Nothing surprises me mind you.

Cynthia, it is painful to see how suddenly some people who are bad painters, bad photographers etc all of a sudden use AI and let a machine produce lots of stuff for them, then claim they are the painter, photographer, artist or whoever and they take the lazy route and claim it for themselves
They never spent time or effort to get good at something
I would send a note to the admin of the group with maybe a few links to examples and ask: it seems to me that they use AI a lot, how come that is allowed?
Then the admin will have to look carefully and hopefully they give you a response
At least that way you don't confront the AI person and you might get a good reason or not from the admin why it is ok to have these AI images in a no AI group

Okay, since you asked. I don't see how an AI image can be called a painting if its creator didn't draw or paint a line of it.

Judy,

Philip brings up a new layer to the discussion by over painting the AI image. I might start to pull my hair out.

Nina,

Quite honestly I am seeing excellent photographers and painters using AI. People have limited ideas. That individual limit can be huge or small. AI is a huge boost for them to produce a lot of (new)stuff.

Hi Cynthia,
I think fighting this one is a frustrating and losing battle for many group administrators.

I send out reminders to my First Friday Gallery Group (FFGG) (of 950 plus members) from time to time that say:
-----------------
"ARTISTS:
Please post your best work - All mediums are accepted.
MUST BE 100% YOUR OWN WORK! No stock images

***Use of AI to enhance YOUR OWN Photo, Drawing, or Painting is acceptable

100% AI image created solely from text description entry is UNACCEPTABLE for this group"
------------------

When I first posted this restriction, I had a few artists leave the group. Some have remained, and clearly use AI to generate their images, which to my eye, tend to have an artificial look to them, and are easy to spot.
I allow the AI images in to the group, but will very rarely give the 100%AI images a feature.

***AI applied to an artists own photo, drawing, or painting has produced some exceptional results, and have earned a group feature.

At the end of the day they are all images, regardless of how they are produced.
I use the eye test for my group. For the features, I am curating work for the FFGG. Is it something I would find on display in a gallery or museum? Is it right for this group?
Is it worthy of a feature?

I feel that artists should honestly note how they have created their work.

Sometimes I miss giving an image a feature, so I set up a discussion thread in the FFGG to allow group members to post their image and describe what they like about it.

My advice is to do what you feel is right for your group.

Cheers.

: )

I think what's best for me is to tell my inflated sense of justice to calm down and just let people be what they are. I don't know enough in this case and I don't think it's appropriate to insert myself into group politics. If it picks up or happens more, I'll just leave the group and find another with better moderation.

But, I still think in general that if AI is part of your toolset you should say so. Especially for commercial work.

My opinion is that if AI was involved in the creation of the artwork , it cannot be called painting in classical sense. It is called Digital Art, and specific with AI. By appearance can be similar to a 'painting', but then it is 'digital painting' involving AI. And by all means for technical aspects the human cannot take the merits. You should not bother yourself what others think or praise..they all know what is the truth.

I hate to face this but it is next to impossible.

I have heard people recoil at checkout times in brick-and-mortar stores with new payment options, "do not want a chip in my head".

At once not literal and yet very literal. People are sick of it. It is not healthy to have all this tech. De facto most of it is rejected because there is so much of it.

Live and let live everyone picks there own tech. It is again in our faces.

True Dave. Some of what's possible with AI across all media is flat out terrifying. But that's another thread, and maybe for another forum! :-D

I still struggle with folks calling digital art "paintings" and now we have AI. I know I'm not in the mainstream of thought on this, but I believe a painting requires some paint to be applied and because digital art does not include the application of paint it should not be called a painting. To my thinking that is a deception. AI applied to the creation of art is a whole other thing and an even larger deception when someone lays claim to being the creator of art that has been created by a machine in minutes. It is an insult to those who have spent untold hours learning and perfecting their painting technique(s) and style.

Yep....I was not even going there. The chip in the head is not AI. I do not for the life of me know how AI is a threat.

It is like a new version of the Blob. Really?

Jim, A lot of people are circling back to you even if you never circled forward. LOL

Jim, I do both traditional and digital painting. I find that the techniques for both are similar. The difference is that it's easier to change/correct things with digital painting, but it's trickier to blend colors.

My painting below was done with digital paint. But every stroke of it was done by me, with a digital pen, same as I would with a paintbrush. It started out as a pencil-on-paper sketch. It's certainly a painting.

EDITED TO ADD: I too was skeptical about digital painting until I tried it. I admit it's a different experience - dipping a brush in paint and applying it to canvas has a sensual delight that using a digital pen doesn't. But it's hard work either way, building a image stroke by stroke. Both methods are satisfying in their way.

If the group policy is "no AI", then I'd probably bring it up with the mod. And if the mod does not care I'd probably leave because it would just endlessly bug me. It's already bugging me to have to second guess works when voting in contests. (I've made no secret of my stance on this issue and AI work does not get votes from me, no matter how cool it might look.)
In the absence of a dedicated AI category [sigh], any generative AI work is (should be) still in the Digital Art category. Even if it is digitally repainted or whatever it is still digital art, not a painting.

Western, Abbie mentioned a few months back in another thread that Sean was going to add Artificial Intelligence to the drop down list of artwork types (when uploading a new image), but no sign of it yet. But, there will still be the issue of hybrid AI / digital artwork, how to classify that!

I've come to the conclusion that all this digital technology can and HAVE created work, that far excel the piddling attempt I made in creating digital art.

So, I decided, in order to make a go of it, I'll come up with something AI wouldn't bother doing.

SCRIBBLE ART





Hey Cynthia

Congratulation on the Tony Award......It's been a far too long time coming

Roger, I am sorry to have to tell you this, but Studio Artist has about 100 presets for Scribble Art (can be used in full auto AI mode or assisted painting mode). The good news is, you are not obliged to use AI though :-)

Philip,

I tried to remain ignorant, since it's supposed to be Bliss

Now that my "Blissful Bubble" has burst, I'll have to check out what the powers to be are now doing

Cynthia

You probably shouldn't bother.

An old friend of mine, who was a great wedding and event photographer for decades, started playing with mid journey last year and posting images on his FB account. His friends and family kept complimenting him on what a great artist he'd become, and even though he said he was using a program called mid journey, since they didn't understand what it was they thought he was physically creating the artwork himself. He eventually would just respond "thank you" every time someone complimented an image. When I pointed out that the images were AI, people attacked me for being disrespectful to him.

Cyhthia, I echo what Western Exposure said. Maybe bring it up with the moderator. That would bug me too. If someone wants to use AI (I have 0 desire myself) so be it, but don't pretend like it's a totally original work generated by your own hands, stylus, brush, camera, etc.

If everyone else is using deception than why not you!
Here's a good PBS article about an artist who is speaking out and why.

“I mean, that’s what makes me want to be alive,” says the artist, referring to the process of artistic creation. The battle is worth fighting “because that’s what being human is to me.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/visual-artists-fight-back-against-artificial-intelligence-companies-for-repurposing-their-work

The art of AI generators be it imagery or writing is collectivism. The need for skilled creators is diminished regarding commercial endeavors. All is needed are prompt writing, and editing.

Some AI can be a painting if they used a img 2 img. Where they draw the squiggle and it creates something around it. Making it slightly more than theirs. And some AI is quite good, you can't tell its not real, but there is still editing needed to remove artifacts even on the best ones.


----Mike Savad

Someone actually contacted me elsewhere about an artist in a group here that gets very nasty if called out but is uploading AI art as her own paintings. So I had written a post and finally published it https://ourartsmagazine.com/blog/2023/11/27/the-importance-of-honesty-about-artistic-mediums-in-the-contemporary-art-world/

I don't see what you gain by policing what people do in a FB Group unless it is your group or you are one of the admins charged to do so..

If being in the group is valuable and meets your needs, why get bogged down in controversy where it probably will not add but may detract from your presence there?

There is a significant portion of the art world, including non-artists who buy art, that may not care about certain aspects of art. However, as David mentioned, they may see your comments as something other than what you intended.

Remember the wise words of Reinhold Niebuhr

Please grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

I think it's wrong for people to call pure AI a painting....could they have fed a painting they did into an AI app? In that case they have every "right" to call it their painting. I have seen people on FAA say something is a painting when it's not...but I suppose they could have started with one of their own paintings and I don't know that.

This is why I INSIST, in the monthly AI thread that I have going here, that people MUST add "AI" or "Artificial Intelligence" somewhere visible in their Art Pages (that they share in that thread)...if they are afraid, or ashamed, to admit it is AI then they either shouldn't be using AI, or shouldn't be adding it to the monthly thread.

Wow, Abie! That article is great!

That should be a must-read!!

Thank you for that.

There are articles out there that warn that AI in general, despite its undisputed benefits for humanity, must be controlled and limited, lest it wreak havoc. It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out...

I’ve found myself in this position before and just had to zip it. I feel calling someone out on their use of AI is a no win situation. Unfortunately this is the world we live in.

I only paint using watercolor.
My process goes something like this:
I sketch, I paint, I swear, I walk away, I come back and paint some more, I swear again, then eventually by some magic I can’t explain the painting starts to come together.
Every painting I’ve ever done, my eye immediately goes to the mistakes.
I am my toughest critic.
Now, does the AI or digital artist go through this same process? I don’t know.

Just a note....this amazing AI artist used to be a painter and a musician until she had a stroke as a result of a brain tumor and lost use of her dominant arm....she turned to AI and is still an amazing artist.....before people say nobody should use AI to create art, or call themselves an artist, you may want to watch this interview of her.

Thank you, Floyd! If just one person realises the importance, then perhaps it will become more accepted and more open

A floating Storm Trooper helmet? She better watch out for Disney's lawyers!

Seriously, it's very cool that AI use provides healing for people.

Yes, JL, that is a great use of AI art creation.

Just wondering

If Actual Intelligence creates Actual Art

What does Artificial Intelligence create?

Actual Art also

Let's not turn this into an "is AI Art actually Art" thread

if you let it slide there will just be more. Noting it without being judgemental might get the artist to open up and discuss why they are using AI. Privately you might mention to the artist later that the AI was obvious and should not have been finessed.

Personally I am astonished that any artist would use AI to replace their creativity. Why aren't we using AI to do spreadsheets and argue with insurance companies and all the other junk that takes us away from the studio? I mean really, it's like inventing a robot and the robot gets to eat the dessert. Make the robot go wash the dishes or something.

AI doesn't replace our creativity....it can enhance it.

" I mean really, it's like inventing a robot and the robot gets to eat the dessert. Make the robot go wash the dishes or something."

LOL, Richard! I agree. Let humanity create the art and make robots do the grunt work. We already have Roombas to sweep the floor - and we also have dishwashers. But what about dusting? I hate dusting. We need robots for that. I envision flocks of drones with feather dusters.

"Just wondering

If Actual Intelligence creates Actual Art

What does Artificial Intelligence create?"


"the Verbal IQ of the ChatGPT was 155, superior to 99.9 percent of the test takers who make up the American WAIS III standardization sample of 2,450 people."
Ref:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-gave-chatgpt-an-iq-test-heres-what-i-discovered/
MARCH 28, 2023

So Roger, machine deep thinker art is machine art trained using human art.

Thanks for posting that interview Rose. I just started following that artist on Instagram.

I can relate to why it bugs you and agree that we should be honest about our work... however I also think it is probably the best idea for you not to call them out. Until AI came along I never realized how many people wanted to be artists.

As a traditional digital artist I struggle with this issue because AI is getting lumped in as digital art and there is no differentiation being made. I don't want people to think that my work is text to image generated, but I also don't want to have to say that it isn't every single time I post something or to always have to reveal my process, but lately I find myself feeling like I have to do just that.

There really are no easy answers.

Drew,

RE:... "So Roger, machine deep thinker art is machine art trained using human art."

In other words:....Art created by AI is "Machine Art"

I concur

Ed, you are very welcome!

There is a sticking point.

I agree artistic judgment goes in. No question.

I see excellent artists using AI.

I see less of the future in AI. I know that might sound odd. I think globally. No matter how many developments and workarounds to create new things just like all art after a while it is stuff. Even John Lennon thought the Beatles were just putting out stuff by the end. That has to be a dead end attached to it as an art movement. I am not claiming right this moment. I am claiming sooner than people realize. It happens in every age to each genre.

The sticking point is copyright. Ownership is not granted by law in the US. This has next to nothing to do with selling prints.

What it does mean is the claims of artistry are very limited to machine art.

That truly is the honesty we need.

No one is lying at all. NO ONE. Those of us who see the limitation of copyright are being asked to go for a ride sometimes by those who think this is their art. That is hard. We do not like seeing the USCO decision and then hear otherwise. It hurts us we care about our fellow artists. Note we often are talking about conflict in trying to be honest.

I like plenty of examples of AI. It can be excellent stuff. It is not my thing at all. I have a very open mind to art. It does not have to be my thing.

How people express themselves is not what I am discussing in this post. I am talking about ownership issues that suck around AI.

DISCERNING EYE

When one goes through Cynthia's fabulous body of work

209 images created and posted over a 14 years membership here on FAA

One can readily see the Discerning Eye being involved in every one of those 209 images


Can that be said, with 10's of thousands images (as with the young lady in Rose's video) recently produced for one individual, by Artificial Intelligence ?

If the site or group says No AI, then i would definitely raise your concerns with the moderator. The idea that AI art is a fait accompli is simply false and there is plenty of pushback from both artists and the general public.

I recently quit a group on Facebook because they allowed AI. I didn't want to wade through tons of computer-made content. My work saw way less engagement because other people were posting so much computer stuff that it negatively impacted my visibility. The one thing I did notice though was that the AI work did not really receive any likes or shares. People were just scrolling pas them, mostly ignoring them it seems.

Text-to-image masquerading as something it is not is just wrong. Here at FAA I'm also seeing AI output being labelled as photography, while the only people using an actual camera were the photographers whose work was gobbled up by the software companies. If you can't be transparent about your process then there is definitely something wrong.

Yes, Roger, I can see her discerning eyes in the AI images that were produced by Kroline, the lady in that video.

https://www.boredpanda.com/armless-painter-paints-with-mouth-feet-huang-guofu/

There are tons of examples of people who overcome their disabilities to make art without AI.

Artificial intelligence does not yet exist


Despite calling it such

Dean, that doesn't make her story any less important.

Maybe compliment it and ask about how something was created or achieved through a traditional painting method or whatever the claimed method used to create the artwork was.

I have it modify my images


Mostly

She is not making art. She is judging computer output to sell.

That is okay.

I wish her luck in her business.

Honestly we all with digital uploads on FAA judge computer output to sell. Prior the machine did not create the art though. We had a lot more steps to manage the actual output. Those steps are not involved with AI art. I get some will say they then did XYZ. It comes down to a lack of ownership of the aesthetics. If you do XYZ then you own only those changes, not the AI underlying. Some of that will be excellent.

David, who?

The woman in the video. If she did straight AI art with no modifications. If she modified the art she owns the modifications.

The art is really not my cup of tea. I looked at the art not the video.

Rose,

RE:... "the AI images that were produced by Kroline,"

Wouldn't that be similar in saying:

"The student images that were produced by the teacher"?

It’s curation


Curators feel strongly about art

Abbie, that’s a great article. I think it should be a sticky!

Roger, I'm sorry I don't understand. It's 4:30 am here. Maybe that is the problem, lol.

Thank you, Gill!

EVERYONE you know how this forum works. We do not start talking about is AI art or are AI users artists.

Not only AI, but any images. Is it art, is it photography, etc breeds contempt. We just don't go there. It causes members to be booted out and I'm seeing the same faces and a couple of new ones doing it

No more

This is should someone call AI created images a painting, or photography, for instance, if it isn't.

... And do you have the right to call them out on it.

Those are the issues in this thread. If you don't understand the distinction, stay quiet please. Be respectful to the topic starter and keep it on that subject, not disrespectful and getting her thread closed.

When it comes to machine art, I doubt machines are at the point where their feelings get hurt regarding artistic scrutiny.

There are many ways people use to justify their actions. Understanding peoples motivation helps everyone grasp the larger picture.

Empathy and sympathy are often used as tools to distract from the reality of an issue, bringing a sense of rationalization and justification to one side of said issue.

Understanding the drivers behind a point of view can add a sense of impartiality and a healthy skepticism to any civil discourse.
https://exploringyourmind.com/instrumental-empathy-the-basis-of-psychological-manipulation/

And i don't give a monkeys uncle if ai gets upset or not. Only about the members on this site.

Keep to the questions

I just want to add an analogy ...sort of. Personally I have nothing against using AI or similar computer based technology in art creating process. And I think people should keep up the pace with the evolution of technology.
So the analogy: take for instance 3D printing, novel technology as well...but if an artist creates a 3D artwork with it, it is not entitled to be called a 'sculpture' . The classical terminology in art is defined. So 'sculpture' means something else than a 3D print. Same way 'painting' or 'photograph' have their definitions. Visual art (or any other form of art) created by using AI should go into a totally new category.

And something else: we don't know how far this AI thing will evolve. As it stands for now , the artistic creation is defined as a human creation. Or at least the creative activity of a biologically living being. So it is not the same under any aspect. Also as I understand the art creating process: humans/animals when they create something artistic they do it motivated by self-expression and/or to please others' artistic perception. So I dare to ask: do these two motivations apply to AI ? I guess not.

The assumption is that we understand "painting" to mean "with a brush."

When we say "digital painting" we are not using a brush, we are using some other form of electronic input device.

When we say Ai, we think of merely using words as input and whatever Ai comes up with is "ours."

The tools we use are always evolving.

Most of us can tell the difference but that line is becoming less distinct.

If you are the group's administrator, you have the right to reject works that don't follow the rules. If you are not, there's probably not much to be done except start an argument.

Claiming a work of art is something it is not, is IMO unethical. But, trying to police that is impossible. We make our own judgements about art and whether we want to "buy" it or not is completely subjective.

I consider a painting to look like a painting no matter how it was it done. Whether its a filter, effect, brush, wacom, painter app, AI, if it looks like a painting then it is.

AI is confusing because unless you use it, you can won't know what goes into it to make it make something good. Though it will make something, even if the box is has a single character in it. I'd say 50% of it is yours, because the idea came from you, and was sort of guided by you. But at the same time what you want and what it made are usually really different things. And across many models, what you ask for will give different results, but also the same result? Because it all stems from one original art no matter how unique you thought your phrase was, someone probably already did something like it.

Like i'm messing with different ages, stonepunk where everything is made of stone like the flintstones, and dino's walk the streets. And as weird as that one is, the image is very similar to each other across models.


I like comparing AI to this sort of:

get a bowl, get cake ingredients, put them in a bowl and mix. Place bowl in oven, set to 350 for 1 hr. And open the door, and pull out a fully frosted cake, decorated cake, with words that are a bit mixed up written on it.

And from there I can say I totally made the cake, which I sort of did, but I didn't assemble it, frost it, or make it look nice, I just added the cake mix. I could call myself a baker but also not really. Its like putting together an IKEA cabinet/couch combo and not using the instructions, and then calling myself a carpenter. Or assembling a model and calling myself a model maker (which is accurate but not on the realms of what they really do). Or using a MIDI synth play all the music and all I did was mix the buttons a little and calling myself a musician. Its all half right.

I think it is wrong to say - this is an oil painting of a pig when its clearly AI or a filter. It gets much worse when the compound the lie by saying it took many hours to make this and copy some text from a real painters page and add that in the description. Or worse, show them in front of an easel in front of a finished work holding a brush, but I know its a filter or something else. But eventually that lie does catch up with a person.


----Mike Savad

Also for that sculpture analogy - if I 3d scanned an object (a face for example), fed that into a machine, then sent that file into a cnc to recreate that object - am i sculptor? That becomes complicated after a short while.


----Mike Savad

"if it looks like a painting then it is"...if it looks like a $100 banknote then it is?...I am not a painter, but in childhood I took some lessons in painting techniques (at that time it was mandatory in that world which we lived in). So ...using oil, acrylic, aquarelle, pencils, etc, etc to create a visual artwork it is a craftsmanship by itself...and it can take years of practice to master it. So no...painting is not definable on lookout.
Craftsmanship is an essential constituent of the artistic creation as we know it. It cannot be neglected nor overwritten by a computer software or a machine. So for instance from this point of view, analogue and digital photography also cannot be compared equitably. I always mark my photography , what it is, because I know the difference in creation, since I have started photography decades ago using analogue technology.

Cynthia,

Quoting from your opening statement:

"However, I am a grown adult and I've learned often it's best just to leave the universe to sort out these types of unpleasantries."

That is me...at this 88th year of my life.


When I joined FAA in 2009, I joined with GUSTO

Diving into this befuddling digital universe with all artistic EYE, MIND, & HAND I could muster

As digital technology evolved throughout the ensuing years, EYE, MIND, & HAND seemed to becoming less and less necessary in the creation, No, in the Producing of what now is considered to be Art

So, I gave up the notion of creating digital art to make a sale.

And now, for the hell of it, I create digital "Art" just for the numerous challenges presented here on this forum

As for me...So be it

I agree, Tibor. Artists work hard to develop their abilities. They work for years. Their efforts and talent is what makes them artists.

To definitively answer Cynthia's question: if someone creates a bit of AI imagery and claims it's something it's not, I would totally comment about it. Free speech and all that.

It's not just visual artists who are being affected by AI, you know. Singers are worried about being replaced by it. So are actors. Recently an ad agency created an AI model in order to avoid, as the agency put it, volatile temperaments and salary demands. In other words, to replace a human. That AI model pulls in thousands a month. Is this something to celebrate?

Mike,

I was prepared to comment on your last posting, once R Allen had its say.

But Tibor beat me to it


I do know what an actual art/ sculpture is.

For I'm continually shipping out examples

:))) just for the record..I really appreciate technology because it is a product of human mind, creativity and endeavor...and it is meant to ease our strive for existence. BUT, and this is a big but: in a world of machines I would be without hesitation on John Connor's side. I would do anything to obliterate the mean machines.

"Claiming a work of art is something it is not, is IMO unethical."

I believe the above statement sums up Cynthia's concerns nicely.

Abbie, I could not have said it better! Thank you for posting that.

"Unethical"..uhm yes..in a code of ethics established by humans. But who knows in the future who or what will define what is ethical or not. Same thing just like with "illegal" ...All depends on the setup of the frame of reference.

There seems to be a constantly posting of threads about the legality of something or another.

And a dearth of threads concerning the ethics of something or another

Roger,

years ago, shortly after joining this community I started a thread (like many other newcomers, but that I've realized later..) regarding ethical aspects..and it was shorthandly closed. So I learnt rapidly, not as fast as AI, what ethics can be discussed and what not. I've been told like this: "The only point of view here that matters is the sites Terms of Use".

The several art groups I run on facebook have a note
pinned at the top - CC0 and AI works must be indicated
as such - or else your membership of the group will
be revoked!

Whistleblowers then let me know who is disrespecting
group rules; and a final defenetration often occurs!

But if we do understand that the individual is emotionally
challenged in anyway, we do out best to accommodate.

Https://boingboing.net/2017/02/13/rip-j-s-g-boggs-1955-2017.html#:~:text=James%20Stephen%20George%20Boggs%20(born,only%20for%20their%20face%20value.

This guy drew is own money and traded it for goods. Tibors post reminded me of this guy.


----Mike Savad

Jack T, bonus points for using "defenestration" in your comment! And it sounds like you're a good admin.


Drew, I liked your comment about motivation and empathy. There's times to be careful to not let the latter slip into passivity. I don't think this is one of those times though.


David M, "If you are not an admin there's not much to be done except start an argument' This is absolutely true, if unsatisfying. Eh, such is life.


Mike, I love the cake analogy. Clearly this is ethically wrong and for me even if the person has artistic talent it would turn me off of their work. There are some digital paint groups I've seen on FB where they accuse every single work posted of being AI until the creator shows it's not. I think you're right, it'll catch up with them. I mean, they could be using time spent on prompts to improve other skills, or, they could just be open about being good at using generative AI. I think their lie shows an internal bias and/or insecurity.


Roger, I think everyone here will agree with me that on every level you are a true artist. Your creative life so far is amazing; you have style, you have vision, you're resourceful, you worked hard to put it all out there into the world. Even the way you have evolved in the past years since I've been trying to sell work here, you're an inspiration and frankly if I can be just a little bit like you in mind and spirit then I think I'm doing pretty good. I made a whole image about people like you who never stop being curious, it's called Personal Growth. And you're right, I'll let the universe handle this AI trickster. :-)


__________________________

And just to weigh in on the tangential discussion:

I think, the answer to all these very interesting suppositions on labels and what is painting and what is sculpture these days is all about transparency of process. 15,000 years ago there was charcoal on wall. Then for a long time there was paint, and there was sculpture. Then photography, and filmmaking, then experiential art, then digital, and now a zillion iterations of all of those things.

If we rely less on general categories like painting and sculpture, and call things what they truly are; digital painting by hand on a tablet, oil paint applied by machine gun onto a silver nitrate photograph, Italian marble sculpture with forged fittings, etc. Then we all know what's what, and the larger umbrella labels become less charged and historically "traditional" media retains it's original meaning.

I also agree with JL, that time invested is a key to if something is art. I would reframe it to say that time, time learning and practicing, time giving up an starting over, time researching and experimenting, the hours and years studying other artist's brushstrokes and chisel marks and motivations... that's what makes an artist. An artist can still produce crap that's not art, though. I do it all the time :D

The biggest problem with AI is taking credit for the work as it discredits all the other work. Sports illustrated was just caught red handed putting in AI work and taking credit for it.
https://futurism.com/sports-illustrated-ai-generated-writers

and then it makes you doubt the other work. My plan is to make work I would have tried to make digitally already, and just call it all digital. As it is most people think my work is either a painting (and people argue with me that i'm wrong its not a photo its a painting. And I should know best...) now everyone thinks everything is AI, there is no real winning. They immediately curse me out telling me its all AI generated.

I feel like i'm in a dream where everyone unzips their face and its really a bunch of aliens. And every time you wake up, people are still aliens. And no one knows what's real any more. Because its all fake, and at some point there will be a breaking point where no one will care.

Someone wrote to me about an instagram guy with fantastic photos... That are AI or at least look AI. But its sort of like lying in a job interview, you look great up until the point that you have to prove you can do the job and then it suddenly crashes down around you. Like you can make a pretty thing in AI but ask it to do the same thing again from a new angle and it can't (yet), do that.


I guess another viewpoint is like - making a basket in basketball, recording it and saying, I am the best.. And his whole life is based off of that one shot. But he doesn't show the outtakes of the 400 tries to get that one shot. And I doubt he can do it again. But if you can talk the talk you'll fool people for a while.


----Mike Savad

I must be grateful that, at present, I use this forum, and POD in general, as a means of slowing this really old mind from atrophying

Relying on the old standby.... Tangible Art...to keep me relevant

Cynthia, I also know you produce wonderful works and while I don't know your process (or want to know) but your digital art for lack of a better term does to the untrained eye have an AI look to it due to its illustrative nature. (I have been following you for years)

I just started creating some AI myself since Dall-E 3 came out and it finally creates some incredible imagery. I have loaded some in an AI gallery https://vistaphotography.pixels.com/collections/ai+creations
In almost every case I make minor changes to make more sense and I have one with a red truck in front of a barn that I made changes in Photoshop both generative AI and text...
At what point do we say we have generated a new piece of art through our changes and it does become ours? :-) Can we say that? I don't know the answer to that.

I do know I posted it on my FB page and got mixed reviews. 70% loved it. 24% were wary of it. and the remaining folks asked if I would continue the blasphemy that is AI and I should be cast down into the pits of hell... :-)
I like the creativity it provides me because unlike you and so many others I start with Rembrandt in my mind but stick figures is what my fingers draw...
Maybe FAA is the wrong place for AI? Not my call and I don't say anything when AI shows up in my groups (for the most part)

Well, this horse has been whipped to death. The horse did not move. LOL

I have not been able to solve this. You reading this probably have the solution.

New technology is an opportunity


As always in the art world


And it’s always resisted…

All these definitions of what a painting is and what it is not, unfortunately, is not really all that meaningful because you can not force "a" single definition for everyone.

Ask Google what the definition of a painting is, and you will get all kinds of answers. Incidentally, very few of them say it has to be done with a brush or any other "tool" to be considered a painting.

Everyone has their own perception of what a painting is and what it is not, and a large percentage of those people have got it wrong, according to many artists. But the fact is, their perception, wrong as it may be, is their reality, and you have to deal with people's reality even if it is based on false perceptions.

So, if you want to be that person who is out there trying to set the world right on what a painting is according to your perception of what a painting is, I suggest you steel yourself for a never-ending, uphill battle that will achieve nothing as it relates to the greater scheme of things.

AI is really a worthless word that has been horrificly diluted.

Realistically though, it depends on the group and the rules of that group. It you are not in a position of having to administrate the group, its probably the least stressful approach to just block the person.

Digital art is the best classification for any computer generated or manipulated art. "AI" has been built into paint software and digital cameras for a very long time. Anything with the word "megapixel" after it is some form of AI. Even the act of scanning a photo is some form of AI. Skin blotchy correction, red eye, color normalizers, and many other normal corrective tools that have been around for a long time are AI based. Paint programs with a "oil paint" filters are another way AI has been integrated into programs for a very long time.

For your situation, your group rules will be the best course of action.

Overall though, using AI can be made one's one work, but only if they use an editor along the way and put the effort into making the image their own. Most importantly though, if they are not honest about their style, it will show in the quality of the work not matter what tool they use.

I have seen enough art to last several lifetimes. On some level, I really do not care.

I do care about property rights. But that is not central to anything. I own my art. It does not matter what other artists do.

Long before AI, there was always a discrepancy when I registered my art and people who did not register their art complained about infringement. Their ownership was left to a degree open-ended.

For the life of me I can't understand why this amazingly unbelievable technology of Today's digital universe. insist on using stodgy, anachronistic, outmoded terms of a bygone age.

to play the contrarian for a minute, what we are really debating is whether it is correct or ethical to claim as a work of art something that was generated by typing in a few keywords, phrases, or style references.

How is this different than the urinal signed by an artist? Then, the art was in the artist's eye and his choices. Now, it is being argued in some critical circles that the art is in the selection of keywords and style references.

This strays far from Ms. Decker's original complaint, which is a legitimate charge of attempted kidnapping - in that case, the truth; but as Ms. Decker said the "kid" kicked and screamed so it was obvious what was going on. Not only was it attempted kidnapping but there is a secondary charge of sloppiness - the AI was obvious to the viewer therefore poorly hidden.

Richard,

A lot of us are disturbed by it.

When I arrived here my art disturbed people. My proof was registration.

It is also not clear if it is a business threat. FAA claims 500k plus artists. FAA could claim many more.....but that does not help. Same sort of thing with images.

We kind of heard we can only discuss do you address it in a group? Addressing what is okay in the group can hinge on any rational.

Honestly, in the background, I am philosophying over other things. My thoughts are from the wide perspective to the narrow. It is not just a simple discussion of anything with me right now. Kind of nice for this oul dog to be learning new tricks.

Abbie's quote from her blog entitled
"The Importance of Honesty About Artistic Mediums in the Contemporary Art World"

"So, basically, honesty about the medium is essential to maintain the integrity of the art world, respect the unique qualities of each medium, and ensure that viewers have a clear understanding of the artwork they are engaging with.

Stand up AI artists and tell it for what it is!"

What a most excellent conclusion as well as very applicable to this conversation and the concerns raised.
Bravo Abbie!

"Drew, I liked your comment about motivation and empathy"

Thank you Cynthia.
No one is exempt from needing their POV heard and understood. Each individual approaches this in a wide variety of ways. Most do not need to have absolutism cuz being right or wrong is way too binary but a few need the comfort and simplicity of absolutism through basic binary thinking.

I am glad you have decided to join the conversation on the forum for now. I share your enthusiasm for CG artistic creations and I respect your skill and your know-how to accomplish with CGI your high level of artistry.

The pregnancy of beauty is AI.

The artist is the midwife or
surgeon who brings that beauty
out into the light!

Richard,

RE:.. "art is in the selection of keywords"

Hmmm.

Perhaps AI is kinda like this Humongous POD Universe.

Where the proper selection of keywords will fire up the POD Universe to produce the winning image, hopefully YOURS

Well, AI is potentially dangerous and we do not have a good history of self-regulation so it will eventually need to get some good governance.

Richard, and All

Maybe like Hal in 2001 when it became too uppity, Artificial Intelligence plug should be pulled.

And people get back to doing their own job


A bit hyperbolic???...Perhaps

This question sounds parallel to similar ones I recall back in the early days of computer imagery, video and music...whether "they" will replace "us" by iterating out variations on programmed algorithms. So far "us" are still going, but computers are getting better. I really don't know the answer to that question, whether there's a human element that is essential to any art or whether, spinning enough variations, it's just a matter of random luck before a computer generates the next Mona Lisa.

Do humans actually need to create art, or do we just recognize it when we see it?

Most of us are bad judges of the quality of art. Otherwise, why would there be so many bad TV shows.

Nobody is going to pull the plug. Nobody has so far and there's no reason to think they ever will, short of a global cataclysm. Even if I pull all of the plugs in my part of the world, the rest of the world probably won't. They will just make more computers.

I really don't know the answer to this. Having spent most of my career years in IT, I've seen software make advances that were unimaginable when I started, back when computers as big as a house just printed out paychecks, based on information from punch cards. HAL and Robbie the Robot are with us now, only they are redundant, backed up and decentralized. There's no plug to pull, unless we pull all of them and destroy the backups. That's not such a good idea.

One of the recurrent horror stories of astronomy is something called an electromagnetic pulse, emitted by cosmic events. If one of these babies hits earth, everything with chips (and most of us) will be fried. That may be the hope for human-made art images and sound; whoever was in a cave when the pulse arrived will emerge and start making wood carvings with stone knives.

Dangerous?...once a wise man said (in relation to the discovery of the H bomb): "even an axe can be dangerous, depending who is holding its handle...".

Although, a person with an axe can only kill the people in the room. The H Bomb will kill the city and vaporize the "room".

..maybe, but the early safety devices on nuclear reactors implied an axe...for cutting a rope...and the same person also said: "in the 21st century the person who will not know how to use a computer will be considered illiterate" . Was he right..?

To me,

Robots are fine,...as long as they don't look like humans

And

AI creations are fine... as long as they don't look like human creations

I guess we need an artistic equivalent to the Turing Test.

" "in the 21st century the person who will not know how to use a computer will be considered illiterate" . Was he right..?"

Almost. We're getting there, if you consider all of our little digital devices to be computers. A person has to be low on the scale to not be able to use a phone.

Doug,

It seems to me. .that.....

A person has to be low on the scale to not be able to continually hold a phone.in their hands as they proceed through Life

Imho..in the creation of art we don't need to scrutinize the product itself...but the motivation for creating it.

Wow....this thread has gone so far from the original posters questions....

Rose,

Cynthia asks, "What would you do when someone claims the AI image presented is a "painting". ( As with the last image on your current thread)

I know what I would do if it were my thread



Edit:

I see as I was typing, you posted an additional image

Huh? I say all my art is Artificial Intelligence if it is, I don't pretend it's a painting. And the last few images by other people on "my" thread have AI mentioned somewhere visible to the buyer, and me, on their page. That is why I insist on that. Some people don't follow that rule tho and I let them know that is not acceptable in the thread unless they DO add AI or Artificial Intelligence somewhere.

I find this all so similar to my pet peeve.

That's when one walks up to a statue and takes a straight on photo of that work of art, and claims to be the artist of the resulting image

Rose,

I never said your work wasn't

I'm referring to the image just before yours, that claims to be a digital painting

Roger, I'm sorry, I misunderstood and changed my response that I wrote to you above. I am curious what you would do if that were you thread? I don't have the ability to "ban" anyone from that thread....and that person did follow my rules. AI is visibly mentioned in their keywords for that image.

I found a link that demonstrates how a machine with AI can actually paint a digital image onto canvas with real oil paints.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artistic-robot-paints-portraits-355982

This does naturely open the door for a plethora of situations where the authenticity of the product becomes even more convuluted. At the same time though, it does offer an individual with severe motor control to be able to produce "real" art through computer assisted technology.

Technology is a tool that offers many wonderful possibilities, but also can be abused by selfish people. I see too often people blaming the tools, not those actually responsible and it has been even more prevaliant recently with the misuse of AI and complete lack of understanding of what it really is or how it actually works.

All art replicas etc are not real.

Why should we be surprised?

Art is an illusion of reality.

With that, I accept AI again.

The public is split as usual. The debate never ends.

Note all of it is art. I am not asking the low question is it art? Dumb question.

Just if you find a successful AI piece you will lose it to whoever wants to sell it instead of you.

Cynthia,
If you are a group owner, then you set up rules. You could write something like this, "AI-assisted images are not welcome in this group." You could never approve images submitted (which you think were made with the use of AI), to the group.

Suppose you are just a participant in some group. In that case, that is a totally different situation, and you are at the mercy of the group owner.

Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that "painting" in today's terms is a misnomer.

Ever since digital art became a thing, it's been called (among other things) painting, albeit not with a (traditional) brush. Although, it could be argued that sweeping a brush across a digital tablet could be a form of painting, just like a finger or stylus etc. The difference is not the input device, but the paint (or lack of).

The act of transferring your thoughts or vision to canvas (or screen), however you do it, is.........?

Maybe it's not completely the artist's fault for misconstruing their work, we just need clearer ways to describe it.

Part of me really thinks that all this AI stuff, the friendly stuff, is here to get us comfortable with AI, so we ignore it when it does take over my toaster and I can no longer make toast and I have to duck out of the way when I enter the kitchen.. Just the thought of the day.

There was a guy a while back that didn't want to do his homework, but instead attached a pencil to his 3d printer and made a program that let it plot it out for him in his own handwriting. He couldn't call it his actual work and he could too especially since chat gpt wrote it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/10sja83/3d_printer_does_homework_chatgpt_wrote/

this sort of also reminds me of that. The kid put a lot of work in to make it possible to not do any work at all


----Mike Savad

David,

RE:... " sweeping a brush across a digital tablet could be a form of painting.."

To me,

sweeping a brush across a digital tablet , IS painting.......Digital Painting


However

Clicking on the "Enter" button and waiting for the results is another question


By the way. I like Cynthia's term for the results of her amazingly artistic EYE, MIND, & HAND

DIGITAL RENDERING

D. R. Thomson, in writing about Marshall McLuhan, stated that McLuhan predicted AI in his writing. So we can't say we weren't warned...when he (Thomson) asked Chat GPT about its worldview, the response was "I do not have one, I only synthesize the sum total of all the input data."

So there you have it - the artist claimed work as his own, yet it is privately AI generated: this artist unwittingly outsourced his own worldview in favor of some computer lab group. So the joke's on the artist.

BTW regardless of computer programmers in San Jose, CA, AI is not pushing aside any other form of art. The public is not going for it like that.

Abstract Expressionism pushed aside a lot of other stuff eventually. This is not that sort of situation. Intellectually AI does not matter. The designs in the visual arts don't matter which is an oddity. The computer companies have not paid to create the sort of propaganda push to shove out the older forms of art to sub in AI. The is no reason that computer companies could afford to do that economically.

I believe the art community has overreacted to the ideal of AI dominating art sales, I see it primarily met with a lukewarm reaction or total rejection. I am not saying there has been an overreaction to the copyrighted images being used for training. That is just wrong and will never be acceptable, IMHO.

I see very little AI sales in my Facebook groups that I own and approve every post or others that I just belong to.

I also see very little of it crossing FAA's recently sold.

I have only sold three items out of 13 AI-generated pieces displayed at local venues, despite all the attention they received.

In one regard artists feel a need to care. AI is new tech. That does not mean much.

It is like the phonographs in cars back early 1950s I think? I was not around. Yeah, the cars sold but then people discovered it was not the best idea in the world.

AI is not the best idea in the world sort of thing.

As anyone's Mom could say, "Just because you can do it does not mean you should do it".

Floyd,

RE:.... "I also see very little of it crossing FAA's recently sold."

How does one know, if so few admit to it?


When it takes me many hours to create one hand made digital image, why should I continue, when AI Generation can continually spew out images one after another?

That is a reason I switched over to AI, it takes hours to do a digital image, hours looking for the right stock etc. And then it sits for years and never sells. So at least this doesn't take as long to do.

Of course do the buyers care? Will they know the difference? Do they want the "handmade digital stuff", or the computer made stuff? Sort of the difference between baking a cake and pouring one from a box.


----Mike Savad

Mike,

RE:... " pouring one (cake) from a box."

I'm trying to get that image in my mind

People are still going for originals (art and photography) over what they believe is ai created. It's not a big seller

Pretty simple.

Take a cardboard box with a cake picture on it.

Open box carefully, exposing contents.

Fill said box with several cups of water.

Pinch box at top and shake vigorously away from your body (lesson learned).

Pour cake out of box and put into oven. Pull out and you get fully frosted cake. Its like magic.


----Mike Savad

"How does one know, if so few admit to it?"

Careful... that is almost admitting it all doesn't look that same and can be identified easily as AI... do you really mean t to say that? lol

Abbie, thank you for the verification. As mentioned above, that is what I am seeing and experiencing for my own AI vs Original work.

It really kind of stands to reason when you consider that it is all a form of abstraction. I for one have not seen all that many AI creations that are what I would call realism. Certainly not photo realism. I think most of us would agree that abstracts in general do not sell as well as realism or impressionist art.

"People are still going for originals (art and photography) over what they believe is ai created. It's not a big seller"

Is that perhaps more to do with most buyers having a preference for specific types of traditional subject matter, rather than the methodology of how it was created? I know that pretty much any subject matter sells on FAA, but it seems to me that the majority of buyers here (based only on the recently sold examples) have conservative tastes regards what they hang on their walls.

" I am not saying there has been an overreaction to the copyrighted images being used for training. That is just wrong and will never be acceptable, IMHO."

thank you Floyd for mentioning that. I know that is not the topic here but it is good to remember where a lot of the AI gets all of the data it uses to generate images.

Miike, I do love your cake analogy! Seriously, that is precisely what it is like.

Not so seriously, even when I make a cake that way, it turns out like I put the box in the oven after pouring out the cake.

Most of my AI attempts taste like what a baked cake box would taste like.

To me, that is where the artistic talent comes in. You have to be able to look at the results and see if it is good or not. Then you have to have some creative talent to make it real work from an artistic point of view. I see a lot of AI that doesn't do that. I have created a lot of AI that doesn't do that.

It i like the photographer who looks through the lens and know what he is seeing is a good shot and the one that just clicks the shutter and hopes it is good.

Sometimes it is just in the knowing what is good art and what is not regardless of how it was created.

RE:... " what they believe is ai created"

To me, "believe" may be the crux of the matter

Roger may be very correct about the "believe" catalyst... With technology now exist were a digital image can actually be transferred into an oil painting or a watercolor or some other actual physical media, the lines really are blurred and it becomes even more difficult. I can honestly see businesses like fine art America actually being able to take a digital print and producing a real oil painting from it as a part of their selling product. It has a definite appeal for those that want a physical tangible work they can put their hands on and feel the ridges and layers of paint. This is of course a good way of using the technology that benefits everybody in the long run.

Sadly, with the convoluted bastardization of what AI is or even represents in the context of digital art created with a tablet, brush, mouse, light pin, or even touch screens, it all seems to be lost in the toxic rhetoric that is now floating around. Digital art is really a masterpiece in and of its own just as any other median. Looking at the game industry is a good example of just how complicated digital arts can be at a larger scale and how many hundreds of millions of dollars per year go into paying very skilled individuals to create that work.

All modern technology uses some level of AI as a part of the creation process. My tablet and paint programs for example have a setting for watercolor or oil where I can literally create an image where the background mechanics blend and diffuse everything around my strokes as if I was really using those particular kinds of medians. As evidenced in my own gallery, I can create very realistic work but nonetheless it is still digital and the some degree it is still AI-based. There is simply no way you're going to use any form of modern technology That doesn't have some level, even if it is statistical correlations, that are AI derivatives of some caliber.

For the perspective of my own work being completely digital based, AI is a part of the process because it is built into the tools. Even if it wasn't built into the tools, I don't know that it would matter given today's modern technology and how well it has been used for two decades within computerization without all of the toxic rhetoric that has been created over the last 3 years. In time all of this nonsense will simply fade and the uselessness of language will be removed from the tool itself. With my current tools, I can create very realistic images and have a couple within my own gallery that represent that possibility. I just prefer the style of brighter colors and more extremes within the color palettes, partially because of being half blind, but also simply because of wanting the more vibrant textures that I have grown accustomed to for working with computers over 43 years of my life as a programmer.

I can only envision the kind of situation that occurred when electric saws came out when people were so used to manual saws. The very root of what AI is really isn't that different. You can make the same analogies with a microwave versus a stove or many of the other modern devices that have become mainstream within our own society and lives. I am old enough to have lived through the computer revolution taking over businesses and spending countless years teaching people how to use computers just for basic office maintenance and management. Countless times, I sat with people who were absolutely terrified of the computer because they are conditioned to believe that it was going to take over the world and it was the devil itself. One particular one I remember, the student was so terrified of the machine it took me 8 hours just to get her to touch it with a completely unplugged and dismantled. I wish I could say this is an exaggeration, but it really isn't. I really don't see the AI revolution to be any different than any previous technological revolution that has ultimately had a long-term positive impact on our society.

Every tool has its good and it's bad every tool can be a blessing or a curse. The tool should not be blamed for a person's actions or choices. The person themselves should be held accountable for what they do and that seems to be in short supply in this day and age.

Abby's observation shows us the Buying Public Knows the Difference!

Thank you, Robert Darlin. Kudos, for your clarity, sharing/insights,offering hope. You are the exemplar of 'the Man for our Times', and good enough
to clarify all we (me) are facing, due to the furtherance of use of A.l. Artists HAVE to get real about the future and listen to you, Robert.
(My only personal quandry, is, that I can't bring myself to sign a work that is not all ! my work only, without A.l.)

"I for one have not seen all that many AI creations that are what I would call realism. Certainly not photo realism." [Floyd]

I had a look at the new uploads on another p.o.d. I'm on and page after page at least half of them were AI and a lot of them were not only photorealistic but also categorized as photography. (For media selection the site allows Photography / Painting / Digital Art / Illustration / Collage and does not stop you from selecting all of them if you choose to be deceptive.)

It's gonna be a while before we work out all this and even longer before law and court cases catch up. We will all be gone before the legalisms are worked out. One of those philosophical questions that needs to be answered first would be a definition of intelligence. I spent some years in the testing business and realized that intelligence, as a number like IQ, means that you can answer a bunch common knowledge questions on a test, in a short time. If you can answer more than I can, you are smarter than I am, but, nobody in the IQ measuring community has any idea how to measure creativity, which seems to be a combination of a bunch of abilities, combined with a willingness to go off the deep end.

Both here and in the "real world" art universe, it's not easy to characterize what will sell. I know lots of people who do "real" art, in the sense of objects that get posted in galleries. I started on this in part as a self defense against some of that elitism. I go to fairly frequent openings and see stuff that other people like, that would be in the back of the basement for me. By comparison, most of what I see on FAA is much more conventional, and most of it would NOT be stored in my shed. Is that better art? I don't know.

I appreciate that in both art and music, much of what happens is NOT predictable and does not conform to established "standards". That's a good thing. In the music world, I recall that The Rite of Spring was once thought to be horrifying....Rock and Roll was sinful and primitive and abstract jazz was obviously only intended for consumption by people who smoke the "stinking weed" that used to land you in jail, but that I can buy in my local pharmacy now if I'm 21.

Stuff changes, thankfully.

Viva,

With respect, any image you put up on this site or any other site for that matter has already gone through some level of AI processing. Whether it is red-eye correction, color normalization, or even just a digital camera that took the picture to begin with. Even if you are using a 1950s camera with no computerization or electronic flash, the very act of scanning your photograph now involves some layer of AI.

In our modern and digital world, there is nothing in the computerization of our world that doesn't or hasn't been touched by AI or a derivative in some way. It has been that way for a long time. ChatGPT only brought that to the forefront, but it wasn't the inventor of the process, It wasn't even the herald of the process to be quite honest.

In the end of though, most consumers buy into an illusion of what is real and not real to begin with just in the very basis of their own daily lives through whatever is saturated to the various propagandized media services driven by commercialism and marketism, for better or worse. I don't believe that gives computerization a free rein though, as there still needs to be accountability and responsibility for the usage of the tool.

Robert,

RE: ... "people who were absolutely terrified of the computer because they are conditioned to believe that it was going to take over the world and it was the devil itself."


Well, I'm absolutely terrified of the smart phone, because I may be conditioned to believe that it has taken over most everyone in the world and it is the devil itself.

Robert Darin,
I think you are painting AI with too broad of a brush. There is a huge difference between computer input/output and what Artificial Intelligence purports to be and do. I create traditional work and scan it myself on a manual setting, then I tweak it myself in an older version of Light Room. There is no AI involved in what I do. I don't know what the sites do with my art once it's uploaded, but I can assure you that I do not use AI in my process. That is not to say that I would be averse to using AI based tools in photo editing and such. My main gripe with AI is in how the various generators are 'trained.' I do think it is disingenuous to claim to have done a work by hand in any media, including digital, if you only used text prompts to achieve the results.

Robert, thank you. I bow to your 'modern' concepts, and still will not willingly sign work I didn't create, and in 'creation' obviously I mean, without modern
arttifical intelligence. The camera, the crayons,etc, lol, are 'standard' in the Art world, not as 'prompts' but as tools, used with my own hands, mind.;...and
the A.l 'tool' ?, carry on without me..........it interferes with my hand/work, mental health, self-respect.

Now, AI is a controversial tool that requires knowledge and finesse to use. That's not the discussion here. The discussion is; in a group of artists where most everyone lists their medium when they share work I think if a person uses AI they should say so. This person says "paintings" "my painting", etc. There's never any process pictures and they produce detailed images at a pace that would be impossible with more traditional media.

Cynthia, with all this talk going on, and a lot of people going on other extraneous tangents, did you decide what you want/should do yet?

Ditto Abbie!

Wait Abbie! :-D I have one more thing to share that's not to my main point but to the broader discussion. Saw someone said this and sums up my feelings on the topic pretty well. But my main question was answered, so thanks to all who weighed in.

Rose, I'm going to let it slide. It's like an itchy tag at my shirt collar, but it's only going to happen more and more so I might as well get used to it. If it was my group, I'd enforce the rules.

______________________

This was a response by Ethan Mollick to a thread demonstrating and discussing that Google is now returning AI images when searched for people or places.


"Seriously, don't trust anything you see online anymore. Faking stuff is trivial. There may be ways to tell now, but those ways will disappear. There are no watermarks, and watermarks can be defeated easily.

The corpus of human knowledge from mid-2023 on will have to be treated fundamentally differently than prior to 2023. A huge amount of what you learned or think you know about how to evaluate images or text is no longer valid. Not an exaggeration. We are at the KT Boundary for information. Archivists should lock down the pre-2023 information world. What comes after is going to be… different.

Doing sentiment analysis on a large corpus like Reddit or Twitter to track social or political changes? Your data is forever corrupted

Assessing documents for a lawsuit assuming a human wrote them in some way? No longer true.

This genie is not going back in the bottle."

Thanks for that quote Cynthia, I agree with him.

I think of Pandora's box, too late to shut the lid now...

Great post Cynthia!

"Seriously, don't trust anything you see online anymore."

I came to that conclusion several years back, way before AI was a hot topic of discussion.

"This genie is not going back in the bottle."

Nope, that is why I am trying to learn to live with it, use it, and compete with it as the need arises.

To lump any and all algorithms into "AI" and conflating it with generative AI at the least is over rationalization and the worst fallacious.

The output of generative AI has be deemed not copyrightable therefore public domain. Claiming attribution to said product by a person is claiming attribution to work declare not copyrightable.

This reason IMHO is the reason why so many artists are put off by people claiming generative AI art as their own.

False attribution along with false medium implication is intentional deception.

If a contest, group or image thread administrator requires no generative AI and correct medium declaration then that is what is expected.

MM Anderson,

With respect, the brush I used to paint the topic is the one that I spent 20 years of my professional career doing in writing programs that are now considered artificially intelligent. When I first started writing these programs, they were properly labeled knowledge bases. The truth behind all of what has gone on just within the last year really has taken root at least 15 years ago.

People are up in arms about having their information used to train AI, but in reality Facebook, Twitter, and all the myriad of social networking platforms have been used for at least the last 15 years to train the software, all public data that people gave away for free. All of the images you posted on your public timelines, everything your family would post, everything your friends are post, all of it has been used to train the modern-day knowledge basis or what we now like to call AI. The technical term is an LLM or a language learning model.

The technology that is now being heralded as new and shiny is 30 years old. It takes a computer hundreds of thousands of samples to be able to recognize a shape, even something as simple as looking at a number on a piece of paper can require 100,000 samples of one single number. The technology has had 15 years at least to get where it is at and to be able to understand what a cat, dog, or even a tree would look like. The truth is though, more often than not it doesn't do all that well and still has major issues even after the hundreds of thousands of samples it has been given through public information.

Through truth is that this conversation should have happened at least 20 years ago when the very first premises of using public information to train computer learning models began and it didn't because in all reality the scientific community knew exactly what would happen, exactly what is happening today with the technology. But today, there is technically nothing you can do about it because it is already been done and any information put out publicly has already been used. As far as being offended or upset that public information was used in a way that you might not have abided by, the court systems have already ruled If you put it out there in the public it is just that, public and you have no legal right of deciding how that information gets used.

The legal discourses of this particular issue go way back far beyond just that of training AI models but with personal timelines and various social media posts. Any public information can be used for anything with absolutely no legal protections. That is not conjecture, but that is absolute law that has gone through multiple cases. The gravity and a difficulty of how AI generated work or AI derivative work should be cataloged is even more difficult when you look at "work for hire" situations.

The brands trademarks and logos that flood of the world right now are pretty much dominated by work for hire and yet the companies can say they made those brands because they paid somebody to do it for them. In the same kind of context, I can go to a painter or an artist and describe to him a scene I want and then pay him a certain amount of money to produce a work that I can then legally say I made.

The only difference here between me paying an artist or a painter and me using an AI of any kind is one is a machine and the other is a human. Outside that, strictly legally speaking It is still classified as "work for hire." The legalities of this are far-reaching and the implications equally as disturbing. Legally speaking, The work for hire paradigm has been established for a hundred years with multiple legal cases supporting it. Whether or not technology changes, doesn't change the current legal structure, or at least not that quickly. As has been mentioned earlier, complete generative AI work is not copyrightable. That does not hold true though for somebody that might use multiple layers of AI in the editing process or even start out with partial and then use editing techniques. More gray areas to be very honest that unfortunately are only going to get grayer and more blurrier the more technology continues to develop.

For the record, I am not advocating that anybody accept AI generated work or AI edited work or AI manipulated work. I am simply providing knowledge on the basis of what I spent my professional career doing and the various laws and regulations I had to follow in the practice of that career. Even though I actually spent the time building the systems and know how they work from inside out, to this day I still hate computers on a damn telephone and nothing irks me more than having to to talk to a damn machine that has no comprehension that I want to talk to a human being to fix some screw up in my bill...

Cynthia, your concerns are relevant regarding the times we live in.

Imagine what would happen if this forum was taken over by individuals who generate their contribution using Chat GPT and they did not disclose this fact. How genuine would this overall discourse be?

Methinks this is a real possiblity.

Your idea of scrutinizing everything that has appeared after a certain date is an excellent idea!

People are driven to do what they do; motivated by benevolent, malevolent or benign excuses. General AI not Generative AI very well may be our judges on how humans utilize AI and to what ends.

Generative AI is already producing legalese better than many lawyers. If that's the case, what's to stop this technology being used to justify the use of Generative AI at any level and at any capacity?

With all this said, it is within the realm of possiblity that individuals can go to any art online art forum, generate all the artwork uploaded to their profile with generative AI, every description of said artwork generated with Chat GPT, and participate in the community using Chat GPT to generate dialogue to defend and justify its usage in any capacity.

" Claiming attribution to said product by a person is claiming attribution to work declared not copyrightable."
"False attribution along with false medium implication is intentional deception"

I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying here but if the suggestion is that because it can not be copyrighted therefore you cannot claim attribution, I do not agree.

Someone made it happen. Someone called up the program. Someone typed the words into the computer. An image popped onto the screen. It was "created in the same way people create a disturbance or mess when they track mud into a room. Neither the disturbance nor the mddy mess can be copyrighted but the dang sure can be attributed to the person that created them.

Not everything attributed to someone is necessarily copyrightable.

It has been made clear by law that AI is not copyrightable but it certainly can be attributed and the artist that created it, and they did create it.

Go back and look at the monkey selfie. The courts said the monkey can not claim the copyright but they never tried to say he didn't create the photograph.

Sorry to have missed the conversation. So this afternoon I visited a gallery and pitched a show. I received agreement for a solo exhibit starting late January. Some of the work I brought is on my page. I proceeded to celebrate with a couple friends at a local public house.

While I was gone, did anything get solved?

I am reading Hamilton the biography was used in the musical. Those guys used Non-de plumes as opposed to their real names. All of them were the greatest men who lived or the biggest liar you ever saw depending on which biography you read.

The point is we all get a lot of opinions. Some will like and others won't. AI is just more stuff.

The nature of a good open society. Art is debate. Just don't waste time with the is this art question.

Thanks, Cynthia, I was wondering if you made up your mind as to what to do/not do because this thread seems to have taken on a life of it's own and I wasn't sure if you wanted to thus close it. Your call, obviously. Glad you came to a conclusion you can live with.

"A recent study by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) estimated that around 62% of all information on the internet is unreliable." [August 10, 2023] (https://www.businessdit.com/fake-news-statistics/). With a fast-growing use of AI (like or more powerful than ChatGPT), that percentage will grow, probably to 80% or more.

AI will not go back into the box - not on the Internet or art. Complaints would not help. We have to adjust.

As for owners of FAA groups - you are the bosses. YOU decide whether to allow or not to allow AI images to be in your group or not. You just need to be clear in your rules and state that you will not accept any images YOU THINK may be created with the use of AI. It does not matter if the image was actually using AI or not. Only your opinion and decision matter.

Floyd. Yuri and All

RE:...." LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT. (TO ADJUST) "


I've butted heads all my life.




At 88 I'm not going to stop now