lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 3,879
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nice. Though it's a bit clean or modern looking. I was also trying to get a hooded figure in the middle. At one point there was a bottle of wine randomly floating in the air. This is what I have so far.I've had the same experience myself, mostly. However, I just managed to get these in two passes. I don't know if you really wanted these, but in case:
I used "an old brickwork wine cellar with long shadows and twisted swirly walls, with wine barrels along the walls" in Stable Diffusion v1.5 with Prompt Weight 90%, which gave me four views of brick halls with curved ceilings and no barrels at all. Then I fed the most "wine-cellary" one back in as a seed image, with the only prompt "a row of wine barrels along the walls", and it gave me the above images. I was shocked, as I rarely get such obedient results.
So morally human art students shouldn’t study contemporary art to avoid using another artist’s art to effectively screw them over by copying their technique and themes?
Legally it OK for this, human art students, to happen because the artist only has the legal right to control the copying of a specific image. Also some countries recognize a moral right for the artist work to remain as is in the form the artist intended. But that doesn’t prevent the copying of themes and techniques.
Just trying to see where the line being drawn here. As the AI models do not store the actual images themselves.
Yeah, I'm still trying to articulate where the line might be, and it might be a moot point in the end, but I suppose the difference is that humans have to develop a skill that's labor intensive to use with only a limited output, while the AI is an automated process that can be replicated indefinitely for mass production.
#3 would look good enough to be included art in an RPG to me.I find it a bit addictive, trying different settings and strings and seeing what gets generated. Occasionally, it's something pretty good, and sometimes, worthwhile variations are created, but other times, you get surreal weirdness, where one finds somehow it doesn't really know the difference between wine barrels and stone columns, etc.
Some more offerings on the attempt to get a hooded figure in an old wine cellar:
The thin end of that wedge goes back to the introduction of printing.
I recommend using A.I. Art. Not to use directly but as a random generator of a bunch of poses and settings and then use that as a template (by eye) for your own effort. Half the battle is finding the right composition and proportions for the image you have in mind.Meanwhile, like a chump, I'm here trying to illustrate my next game by hand, getting frustated with myself as the vision in my brain doesn't refelect what my pencils are doing.
#4 probably comes closest to what I'm looking for. Still, a lot of oddities going on there. The door at the end looks weird and the proportion of the hooded figure is just off. The vaulted brickwork is pretty much spot on. Now the question is. If you could draw, how much time would it take to draw it compared to how much time its taken to get it nearly right? I do agree that its quite addictiveI find it a bit addictive, trying different settings and strings and seeing what gets generated. Occasionally, it's something pretty good, and sometimes, worthwhile variations are created, but other times, you get surreal weirdness, where one finds somehow it doesn't really know the difference between wine barrels and stone columns, etc.
Some more offerings on the attempt to get a hooded figure in an old wine cellar:
Yeah, that is a good question. I can draw . . . ok . . . but drawing something about like that would take an hour or two, and have different qualities and limits.#4 probably comes closest to what I'm looking for. Still, a lot of oddities going on there. The door at the end looks weird and the proportion of the hooded figure is just off. The vaulted brickwork is pretty much spot on. Now the question is. If you could draw, how much time would it take to draw it compared to how much time its taken to get it nearly right? I do agree that its quite addictive
It's absolutely fascinating how AI's make mistakes that even children wouldn't make. Some of these look like art from people with brain damage.Here's a stream of more typically weird attempts to add wine barrels to your image :
I've used AI art for 'trim' and filler. But commissioned art and stock images for the actual important stuff.
The whole argument is BS though - even with the "omg it was trained on my art" claim. The "harm" is in their heads even if they had it trained on their art.
In a decade it will be an essential tool for an artist. No-one expects them to design their own gradients. They use heal and retouch with impunity. It will just be a labour saving device.
THAT SAID...
It should be easier for artists to train their own models. I think it should be retasked as a tool for artists.
Well, yes, but these artists ask permission and pay copyright dues.
No. Wait. They don’t.
It’s exactly what they do and what they have been doing for centuries. But it sucks when a machine does it quicker.
meanwhile … farm workers, supermarket workers, print workers and looking on and thinking “ya”
Meanwhile, like a chump, I'm here trying to illustrate my next game by hand, getting frustated with myself as the vision in my brain doesn't refelect what my pencils are doing.
I recommend using A.I. Art. Not to use directly but as a random generator of a bunch of poses and settings and then use that as a template (by eye) for your own effort. Half the battle is finding the right composition and proportions for the image you have in mind.
For example I generated a bunch of images for a medieval Russian village in winter by a river and found two that had the right composition and proportion that allowed me to make a drawing by hand much better than I could draw from scratch.
View attachment 53267
Yeah, I hear you. I always seem to buy the wrong brand of pencils because they never seem to draw what is in my head. I think the paper is faulty as well.
DriveThru's latest policy is that you have to designate your product as containing A.I. art during upload and then another disclaimer somewhere else... I think in the product's description. Apparently, customers demanded it.
I run it locally on my iPad (using Guernika). I'm ne'er going to use it for a book*.I've unsubscribed from Midjourney and given up AI art for the moment. It was making me existentially queasy, and it was pricey to boot.
Keeping my AI-generated ship avatar though.
Yeah absolutely. I also make Funko Pop-style versions of all our characters cos it's funny. It's also fun to take like random "snapshots" of the game.I've found AI art great for inspiration for random monsters. Just ask it for something - it gives you something totally different from what you asked for and all you need to do is describe it and give it stats.
I've been practicing pastiches in the style of Mignola, Bruce Timm, and Will Eisner
Pretty sure I can draw feet better than Leifeld and I have no artistic talent or skill at all.Still better than Leifield at his worst though.
I hope there will be appropriate copyright and payments made to these masters. I mean, this is literally what "we" have been criticising AI art for...
You seem confused about what the word copyright means and what are the actual objections to AI art, of which there are a myriad, but I've not seen a single ne revolve around "copyright payments", which would be stupid.
Moreover, since they certainly don't represent my personal objections, or anything that I've said, I certainly don't appreciate you throwing shade my way and using my post to construct a strawman argument for your soapboxing.
I don't think that's the criticism- copying art styles has been going on for ages. It's in using the art in the models to train the AIs. It's a subtle difference, and definitely one for more discussion (is using the eyes to train one different than using the digital medium as the input to an AI?), but it's not a discussion that I feel qualified to take on.I hope there will be appropriate copyright and payments made to these masters. I mean, this is literally what "we" have been criticising AI art for...
Actually it's all about copyright.
Well, you certainly exercise your power when you don't personally like something. Wait. That's the OTHER thread.
Is using the art of others to train human artists bad? If you feed an ai only Rob Leifield bad foot art and tell it is a human with no other context, then ask it to give you a realistic picture of a human, it’s going to give you bad feet. Every single time. It actually doesn’t know the difference between style and reality until you tell it that difference. It doesn’t have any other experience, including day to day life, to determine these things. It has a trainer that says this is a human. It might get “this is what feet look like”.It's in using the art in the models to train the AIs.
ultimately, this is irrelevant, as computer vision is a thing and works. You can have it use it’s cameras just like eyes and learn it the same way. It’s just how you are getting the data into the data store. The useful part comes in labeling. Take computer vision use for driving. All of those Captchas that have you check for stop signs? That’s you labeling for an AI. that’s how it works. You tell it what it looks like from every single possible angle and obstruction because it doesn’t infer especially well.is using the eyes to train one different than using the digital medium as the input to an AI?
Dude, Cure Light Wounds, Guidance and Blessing are still pretty big deals, yanno? That *and* chain mail? Nuthin standard aboot it!My "power" meaning I performed a standard clerical function when you broke a prior established ruling? sure.
Not totally. You're training your model on several different artists at the same time using yhe input from all. Visual or not its still different. Humans just don't learn in that way nor are they as efficient.ultimately, this is irrelevant, as computer vision is a thing and works.
Like I've been trying to art since I knew what it was. I am fucking un-artable. You know the only arty-thing I ever arted? Could produce facsimiles of, and riff off of, the art done by that bad-porn-arty-D&D guy you can't mention anymore. Zak Badguy. That guy. That's my fucking art legacy. I can art like Zak Badguy. Might as well babysit like Woody Allen.People learning and creating art and computers doing the same thing are different things. No value judgement inherent there, but some truth IMO.
See, I don't have any issue with people using AI to art stuff. That said, I also found an artist and paid them for the work they did for my current RPG project, so there are some lines and whatnot.Like I've been trying to art since I knew what it was. I am fucking un-artable. You know the only arty-thing I ever arted? Could produce facsimiles of, and riff off of, the art done by that bad-porn-arty-D&D guy you can't mention anymore. Zak Badguy. That guy. That's my fucking art legacy. I can art like Zak Badguy. Might as well babysit like Woody Allen.
But Skynet? Feed Skynet enough art and it will art better than all the artists. For free, or yanno, five bucks a month. That's the difference.