Did DC Use AI Art In Batman?
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2024
- Want to Keep This Channel Going? / comicstorian
▸Mangastorian / @mangastorian
▸Problem With Channel / @bennyhasaproblem
Want Us on Spotify?! open.spotify.com/show/5QC49HK...
Comicstorian Team Does a Lot With Your Support!
▸The Full Story Channel / @comicstorianfullstory
▸Podcast Reuploads / absolutelymarveldc
▸Podcasting Live on Twitch - / comicstorian
▸Gaming Channel Lore / @eligiblemonster
▸Gaming On Twitch - / comicstoriangaming
▸TikTok - / comicstorian
▸Twitter - / comicstorian
▸Instagram - / comicstorian
▸Facebook - / realcomicstorian - Zábava
Ai art shouldn't be used by any big brand. when they can hire humans.
I agree but to be fair how’s it any different than Robot waiters at restaurants or Robot cooks at fast food places. The whole system is screwed.
Nah
OK but what if the artist used it to make his own art
I agree! I feel like ai art should be used by people who lack drawing skills and money make it a resource for the poor so we can finally make some fan art.
@@NitemericanIt's not different. That is equally as bad
No human would draw Catwoman like that. It HAD to be a computer.
have you ever seen like a photorealistic painting?
@@satoriqueen5867yeah but you know the woman in that picture isint cat woman right? It’s legit black cat from marvel.
I haven't read the comic but some are saying that she is an older version of Catwoman. So maybe that's why her hair is white. Idk man. But I do see the resemblance.
@@specter538 heard that too idk i'll read the comic before i make my mind up on whether or not i can reasonably assume the guy used AI. if there's solid context for why Catwoman looks like that I can give him the benefit of the doubt with the whole Joker thing, if she just looks like that for no reason I'd argue it's more damning than the Joker panel. Stranger has happened than Joker being drawn with unusual features and proportions lol.
@@shawtymcthroatsnatcher It takes place in an alternate future, where barbara gordon is commissioner. Yes Catwoman is old and has white hair.
Using photo references is always going to be a better option than whatever AI produces. Drawing from imagination is one of the hardest skills to learn as an artist. It takes years of drawing and understanding how things work.
Isn't it doing the same thing as AI does then? Looking at a reference photo to draw AND training your mind to draw in a certain style. Like how AI literally works?
@@mr.moonlight7810
Image generators aren't always accurate with lighting, anatomy or perspective. If you want to use a reference it's better to use a real life example before anything else.
Usually something is more rewarding, the more difficult it is
@@mr.moonlight7810you can use reference to draw in almost all styles, and typically it’s a model who has intentionally created reference for artists to use. If you look at reference on the internet then you’ll see what I mean. It’s mainly just shirtless models making poses. That can be applied to a gazillion styles from realism to a cartoon style. It’s not the same as an AI just taking the picture and changing it artists use the picture as inspiration and make something completely new from it.
Drawing from memory is so fn hard, have to know proportions, angles and lighting perfectly
I have a negative view on AI art. Partly from how many people get a big following on socials and use AI for their stuff and I barely get a like for anything I post, and also, because I’ve seen those AI users make comments like ‘now we can all be artists’ when they just type in prompts or steal other people’s work to alter it.
AI art is so stupid, people who say it’s cause they can’t draw are slow because it’s so simple to start learning to draw, grab a pencil and a paper it’ll take trial and error and it’ll take effort and time and if you don’t wanna put effort or time into it then you don’t wanna draw.
Tag yo insta or something I wanna support your artwork
AI Art doesn't steal works. It just gets inspired by them. Same goes for you, who probably got inspired by a work of someone else. Maybe even their style. So, why don't you credit them in every work of yours?
@mr.moonlight7810 I can ask an artist where they got their inspiration if I like their art and want to learn to draw like them. I can't ask the AI to list its 'inspirations', and even if I could the list would be so long it'd be illegible.
I can ask an artist why they chose to draw something the exact way that they did. Were they going for photo realism, or were they trying to invoke a specific atmosphere and feeling? An AI wouldn't understand the question.
On a surface level, AI and humans build their art style in the same way. But AI inhales its inspirations to create slop without rhyme or reason beyond 'the trainer algorithm approved this and disapproved this' at a pace no human could hope to match. Humans spend hundreds of hours building their style, taking what they like and changing what they don't, with reasons behind every decision.
Yet these thoughtful, talented individuals are at real risk of being put out of any sense of a stable income because AI can create at a speed no artist can match, at a price no artist can match, regardless of the difference in quality or thought proccess. Many companies only care about the ability to make lots of products as quickly and cheaply as possible.
It doesn't actually matter which is higher quality at the end of the day, it matters which one enables content farms. Artists can't afford to compete with AI. They charge high prices because the amount of time it takes to make each comission means they need that money to pay rent.
Ai doesn't hurt their ability to create art for themselves, and automation isn't inherently bad. It's when automation is paired with *no job security*
AI should not be widely accepted until it is no longer a threat to people's careers. This includes creative endevours, manual labor, finance, law, the works. Automation must proceed safety measures, not preceed.
What's your soical?
I hope not because that would be truly disgusting! Comic book artist are already underpaid and who honestly wants to buy "art" made by a robot?!
I mean that sounds fucking cool I would
@@TheSlycooper102 ew
@@TheSlycooper102it is looking very cool though! Except few little bits…
Maybe comic artists who are working with 80’s pay should use Ai art until they are paid a decent wage for the real thing
@@TheDominanceAcademyYou think the artists will get paid for using Ai? 😂that’s not how it works they will remove artists all together.
regardless of what you think of AI art, people calling themselves an AI artists unironically is the funniest shit ever. Guess I'm an artist too then, made some pretty dope pieces by typing few words and waiting 10 seconds.
There call A.I art techinution or something its a weird name and some say there pro and noon a.i art techinution but it's all weird
It would be like commissioning an art piece from an actual artist, and claiming you yourself were the real artist because you had the idea for the commission
I think the most definitive one is where in one panel joker is jacked, and in the next, he's emaciated.
oh god an artist didnt draw the character the same in 2 panels it must be ai, fucking brainless
The jacked Joker is not Joker. The panel is set in a future where Joker Jokerized the world. It's just a random person
There's a panel in Batman 144 where Batman not only looks like Ben Affleck for no reason, but the horse he's riding on literally only has one ear
I think The Crow stole the nipple
The Crow (Superhero) stealing The Joker's nipple is now in my brain. I don't like the idea of the two painted men coming together, and now it's permanently stuck in my mind's eye.
can u blame him tho. he probably thought it was a delicious slice of pepperoni. 😋
@@omegaminoseer4539 same bro
For me, I've always thought AI was supposed to handle the boring stuff so we could focus on our art. And yes, economists and civil engineers, I understand there is nuance and you can't just have robots calculate taxes and some such, but that's just how I feel. And especially don't use AI art just because you're doing art commissions, and the people commissioning it just want their art now, without caring about the process. Because I've definitely seen that argument.
Sorry mate but it looks like it's the more art jobs being replaced than professional roles like economist
L take
@@OmniDan26 So what's the W Take?
@@Just_Some_Guy_with_a_MustacheBecause AI wont be used solely on sectors where information misplaced could cause a cascade of horrible events. The idea of it taking mundane activities like cleaning areas, helping with hard and dangerous hand of work on sites and help in plsces like construction sites for specific parts and not all of it is whats expected.
Try putting it into economics and the market will crash because of a few issues in the algorythm with no hand behind it.
The area of art I agree feels weird since AI made art is only copying aspects of artists to interpret information, more so for art it'd be better use to help artists on their works to allign blind spots they missed, but not entire works.
Holy shiz! that random guy with a mustache!🤯 Can i have your autograph
Everytime I think about A.I. and it's art, I immediately begin having memories of playing Metal Gear Solid 2.
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61
TURN OFF THE GAME CONSOLE NOW
La-li-lu-li-lo! La-li-lu-li-lo!
Turn off the game console now.
A whole lot of things make me think about MGS2 these days. And I hate saying things like "these days" but it is uniquely suites to these particular times.
The only AI art i can see being considered genuine, unique art is if a programmer tweaking reworking and tweaking an image generation program to create something abstract, perhaps a visualization of the process the machine goes through to generate an image. like, i get ai art, but it's not a replacement of human art. art needs a hand to paint, a mind to visualize, to realize, math and algorithms may be able to approximate what a human can do, but it doesn't understand what it makes, there's no emotions into it, no despair, no desire, no mania or joy to inspire a piece. this isn't the machines fault, it holds no malicious intent, no intentions at all, just numbers, humanity spurred this on, and so we must correct it
I think the problem doesn't come from the AI not knowing how to draw, but because it uses and steals other art made by real people without their permission, it's like AI is building a "Frankenstein", stealing parts and bits from paintings and pictures, that's why hands are going to look weird for example.
@@tiagofernandes9572 That's not how it works though, it wouldn't take seconds to a minute, but many, many, many, many times longer to make a single image if it were analyzing the 240 TERABYTES of image data used to train (if using stable diffusion - which you wouldn't be able to even run locally if it actually contained all the **training data** like you seem to believe.)
A big problem we also have are those that don't know if something is AI art or not, at my local comic shop we had a guy swear that a poster on the wall was AI generated...it was Alex Ross art. Apparently his art style has been falsely labeled AI art cause it just looks too good I guess?
I google the artist and yes he does look a.i cause he detail very very realistic artwork but the actual shape and size of the jaw and then body are off its like a.i cause it's real but can't get the right detail bit draw way better then me
That’s my concern as well. I can already imagine someone accusing the entirety of Kingdom Come as AI-generated
@@imnugget8085 Alex Ross has been drawing like that since the 90s he’s actually that good.
they probably put his art in the database
It’s a similar argument in the vein of the spirit of cheating or using performance enhancers in sports. Yes, the entertainment value is the same, but what matters is the human expression and effort. There’s a clear line between having art and writing done for you, and you putting in the effort to do it yourself or pay someone who can do it and support the industry. As a comic reader, paneling, story, linework, lettering, and coloring matter to me because I love to see the work artists put in. Yes, AI is a cheap and affordable alternative, but that comes at the cost of authentic human expression. And there is no reasonable way of gatekeep these massive companies from using this tech, and no line for when a company is “successful” enough to stop. Either we stop using AI art for the means of selling artistic expression, or we allow it all. The cost of paying artists for their work is literally the cost of doing business, regardless of size of set business. If we want to see human expression over AI, that’s a hardline stance we need to make moving forward.
But that's the thing..... you really think the human will be dropped for AI artists? Like the technology has been out for a while YET companies like Disney for example haven't ran to it.... why? Because it will always suck compared to a human. If it's so good why haven't ALL TOP TOWER COMPANIES FELL BACK IN IT TO DO THE STUFF THEY NEED ARTISTS TO DO? like there should be AI commercials and ads and shit..... because yk.... they're doing all the work....
This is the same with ghostwriting in hip-hop. YOU'RE the one who should be writing your raps, otherwise, what's even the point?
I think he posted a short video on his Instagram drawing Joker from that issue a month ago.
Sorrentino's art has always depended on photo reference, tracing, and image manipulation way before AI was popular, it's part of why his art got a photorealistic look to it. And it's been very apparent since his debut back in 2010 with God Of War mini series that was written by Marv Wolfman.
At best, he might have used AI for reference, but I doubt he used AI prompts to make the comic because if that was the case then I don't see why we didn't get the entire comic in that painted art.
Did you read the comic
@@spikespiegel2162right??
Or did he even watch the video because if you did you’d see some of the”art” and why it is most definitely in fact ai
Bruh the art was so lazy and half ass
Ahhhh, so it truly was those three things. I assumed it was one of three, but all of them makes sense. Was never sure if it was tracing he was doing or if it was like, collaging reference photos or something. Thanks for the context.
@@BebieHachi we love you
That’s AI. I’m a graphic artist. 200% percent touched-up AI.
It's definitely AI art, there are some anatomical errors and inconsistencies on joker's body (from emaciated to muscled and lean between panels, nipples in awkward placements), resolution inconsistencies that would suggest post-generated edits as well as other digital edits within textures like hair etc, a foggy layer/filter that permeates the alleged AI art what isn't there in other panels regardless of realism.
There's a few things beyond what I've listed as well; just errors that pro artists wouldn't make that a layman wouldn't explicitly notice but overall reduces the quality of the work.
Most of these are just plain wrong and come from people who are looking for problems in the art. It's confirmation Bias and paranoia. The Buff Joker was not Joker and was never intended to be him. It's a Jokerized victim. There also aren't resolution inconsistencies, and the guy who said that had no clue what he was talking about. The nipple in an awkward place, but it's not on a rib. It's just shaded weirdly. The artist of the comic is a known Tracer, which is most likely where the inconsistencies come from, and the guy posted a video of him drawing that specific panel. If you look closely at the image you can see the brush strokes and everything is sensibly laid out in a way that AI just can't replicate.
A lot of tech bros defending AI here
I want to state this. I don't not believe that ai art should be in comic books. To play devils advocate: Human creativity is often described as your brain taking everything it's seen and mashing then together to form a "unique" thought or idea. This includes pictures, movies, video games, comics, etc. So the process your brain and the ai take are very similar and the distain typically comes from the lack of "soul" or "heart" even in beautiful ai works.
Yeah, I don't see anything fundamentally different from an AI being "trained" on artists work and a human learning to draw from other artists works. Most human artists start out by using other artists for reference, copying others' style, mixing their influences into something new.
Humans just tend to be better at it right now, because a lot of AI images look like generic slop with bad anatomy, lighting, and details. But this is a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind.
@@thisxgreatxdecaythe fundamental issue is that learning from someone and referencing their work does not involve stealing it. What you are doing is training your own skills and how to apply it based on what works inspire you. We don't take a bunch of art and then make something, we learn the skills behind what we are doing.
With AI artwork, its not "learning" how to draw. You can't see it draw something, it generates an image. It generates an image by taking a bunch of people's works and putting it through an algorithm that lets them generate what is essentially a mish mash of other people's work. AI algorithms are trained on image sets to be able to recognize different things but using artistic works means you are literally taking someone's stuff to undermine drawing art.
For me I have issues with seeing AI Artist as Artist. Yeah you do need some wording to get the image the right way but how different is that from a client telling a Real Artist what they want? If AI Artists are Artist does that make client who hire Real Artists the Artist and not the one who made it? They are just telling the real artist what they want. If a artist uses their own work... I am torn on it. I mean i rather the artist them selves use it instead of someone pulling their style. As far as people talking about this, i didn't find out about this till i heard about the spawn contest with the AI Art winning? I am still looking into it. I would of though both of these things would be covered more. Still thanks for at least trying to talk about it.
I'd heard about a similar challenge in news articles - a few news organizations announced they were shifting over to AI-generated text for their articles. But most of AI text is trained on these news organizations' articles, so as that shift happens, eventually the AI could exclusively be trained on its own imperfect text, creating a negative spiral. Obviously you can finetune what these models generate to get the most realistic versions of what they can put out currently, but these things make large improvements by expanding their training database. So, even though AI is being pushed currently as a way to replace certain fields, it also needs people to continue creating within them. It's an interesting issue in the creative space, and I do hope things normalize on the side of people getting compensated for their work, but I don't see any legal body even bothering about it, so I personally feel kinda pessimistic towards it all
I’ve already seen a few
While the grammar is serviceable, it’s not fact checked for the most part
With human intervention going in and correcting it, possibly a month after the original story🤔
Thank you for standing with artists on this topic. It's validating to hear you talk about all of this.
RIP Benny. I'm so sorry to hear of your untimely passing.
Imagine comparing the skill of drawing to the ability to write prompts
Doesn't look like the kind of error Ai art makes anyway, looks like a stylization going for a creepy effect. This whole thing feels like a case of people being in disbelief actually skilled artists exist "why would you work so hard now that AI is available" I mean comicbook artist are working absolutely dumb hours already if it were true no one would even bother to draw a comicbook ... Plus artist training AI to use their own style in order to produce a lot more of his own independant ideas is actually what you would want out of this technology right? ... I mean in what way would we want it to be used for anyway? AI prompters are obviously not that.
exactly. Most of the "proof" it's AI art is false and come from people who are looking for problems in the art or haven't read the comic. It's confirmation Bias and paranoia. For instance, the "Buff Joker" that everyone seems to use as an argument was not Joker and was never intended to be him. It's a Jokerized victim. There also aren't resolution inconsistencies as some have claimed, and the guy who said that had no clue what he was talking about. The misplaced nipple is in an awkward place, but it's not on a rib. It's just shaded weirdly. The artist of the comic is a known Tracer, which is most likely where the inconsistencies come from, and the guy posted a video of him drawing the Joker panel where he comes out of the water. If you look closely at the image you can see the brush strokes and everything is sensibly laid out in a way that AI just can't replicate.
Gonna take a shot every time he says AI art
I didn’t notice while reading other than the skinny jeans but I don’t think big brands should ai art instead of getting a human which they are more than capable of
What form of English is this??
@@Space_Toasty punctuationless English
I also think, along with the uses you mentioned, it can be used for inspiration. I don't see that as any different from an artist going to a gallery/museum or a writer reading other peoples books.
they could use it to make random sci fi images to then spark a new sci fi original thing or super hero stuff there are more inspirational original ideas by using that as the starting ground it should never be used for commercial or profit
I get what you're saying, but AI isn't bringing anything new to the table that you woudn't get from your own research on the work of other artists, or nature, or engineering or whatever. Like Benny said, AI is using the work of other artists and rehashing them (without their due permission or monetary compensation - which I do believe should be the main point of the AI diacourse, whether or not it is "actual" art is a useless discussion, I feel) without really knowing what it's doing or why. Even for reference, I don't see benefit from it. Some tradicional artists who draw after AI images started popping up on my instagram feed and, as beautiful as their work might be, the musculature and overall anatomy in it is often nonsense.
Sounds like a great way for actual artists to never get credited for their work once AI throws it in the image blender.
@@gedeonnunes5626 you have a good point its not meant to be used in the serous sense as real art has been for multiple thousands of years it will never get truely replaced neither will humans as nothing could be done without them and as we see currently computers can't do anything but spit out random jumbled images they will always be that way now heres the other side sure companies will use the free alternatives but think about it this people have quality quality makes money if a company wont hire a professional they can turn to the internet and become teachers or further commercialize their works yes its bad that the internet has billions of stolen works not just by AI but as a whole and i then look to comic books many of the greatest designs are taced over by new artists does that could as theft what about fan art in those styles see the AI also involves actual people as well should it be illegal till proper measures are set yes of course but just remember people have been doing it for decades far before AI
@@Carabooya2219its optimistic to think that AI wont replace actual artists but the bottom line is that its going to be easily accessible, doesn't require skill and would be cheap. Without any regulation on their use and their data scraping, the writing on the wall is pretty clear.
Take a shot everytime Benny says “Ai art”
In my opinion, when it comes to determining whether AI images infringe on intellectual property rights, the same rules that apply to human-made images should apply to AI-generated images. If the produced image is substantially similar to a copyrighted image, then it's infringement. If it's not substantially similar to any copyrighted image, it's not infringement.
"Substantial similarity" means being very similar in terms of composition. "Styles" are not copyrightable. If I learn through practice to paint exactly like Dennis Hopper but create totally new paintings in his style instead of swiping his paintings, it's not copyright infringement. The same should apply to AI. If an AI is trained on Artgerm's style and spits out an image that looks just like Artgerm could have painted it, but is not a copy of any particular Artgerm painting, it's not infringement. If it spits out something way too similar to an existing Artgerm piece, then it is infringement.
Now, the question of whether AI-generated images trained on artists work should be considered infringement is distinct from the question of whether companies should replace real artists with AI. As it stands right now, I do not think the technology is good enough to replace real artists. It sucks at anatomy, lighting, small details, composition, etc. It only sometimes spits out what the prompter wanted. It's bad at making characters consistent. Okay, but what about when the technology improves and can rival real artists? Should it be allowed to replace them then? That comes down to whether we want to privilege the ease of producing images or the employability of artists. Maybe it would have been a good idea to outlaw spinning looms and textile machines to promote the welfare of textile workers during the industrial revolution. Maybe it was better to allow the machines so that we could more easily make textiles available and affordable for consumers. It depends on whether we want to privilege the textile workers or the consumers. It depends on whether we want to live in a world where images are more affordable and available to anybody who needs them, or a world where people can still make a living doing art. I'm usually against protectionism, but art is one of the few jobs that people do because they _want_ to and not because they just fell into it. I'm not sure I want to live in a world with fewer fun, intrinsically rewarding jobs. I'd prefer to live in a world where we automate the menial tasks that people don't tend to want to do, like scrubbing floors or delivering pizzas, freeing us all to pursue our passions. So, maybe there's good reason to place limits on corporations' ability to replace human artists with AI (we already have this to an extent: you can't copyright an AI image that doesn't have significant human editing, so no corporation is going to want to put out comics and books that they can't own the rights to, and so they're not going to want to automate everything with AI right now).
Very good summary and collection of possible reasons for the kind of perception on the AI DC controversy right now.
My take is: If it really was AI art, it would have needed to be trained on his own portfolio, because it's clearly his own "analog" style. People say that his batman looks a lot like Batfleck, which is no proof of AI - it just means he could have used Ben Afleck as inspiration because that's maybe his favorite real life Batman. Or an executive told them to use Ben Afleck's likeness because that's what they have a license for. I think the strongest argument for it being AI art is that he's a master level illustrator, and professional illustrators usually don't just scuff over a single missing nipple or crooked fingers. But that argument doesn't have enough weight, in my opinion, they have to rush these comics now. DC is on a downward spiral, WB is already thinking of cutting ties with a lot of DC related entertainment studios and branches.
The artist isn’t using ai art .
Benny it's always a pleasure watching your videos. I wanna get myself some of that hot sauce! Take care man.
AI art is collages and not actual making anything. However, AI isn't even actual ai at the moment. It is an algorithm that is really advanced. It's not true ai intelligence.
Bud algorithms is a form of ai
There is no use for AI Art, if you use it YOU ARE A THIEF.
Thinking back to when I was a kid I was always inspired by Jim Lee, marc silvestri,, and George Perez. Human artist who motivated the next generation to create there own style. It scares me to think this generation will only be moved to get better at entering prompts. Real comic artist will just be the stuff of legends.
Its important to note that artist value their work by the hour. The longer a piece or project takes to make, the more expensive it is. If an artist uses Ai art, then an ilustration that might've taken a whole day could take an hour, meaning an artist shouldn't pass Ai art as their own and get paid the same
Happy Friday.
I’m in favor of working smarter and using the right tools to achieve the results I want.
In the case of an artist is not really a tricky situation, I believe there is an overwhelming majority that even if is impressed with AI productions, it will rather leave a like or a tip to someone who actually produced the artwork with conventional means. Artists can still use AI and create legitimate artworks, if we see the AI tool as a brush.
Ultimately I’m sure AI produced art or articles, have a digital stamp to what they generate. It’s just that it’s not visually there for us to know. And this is what must happen soon. Create a line of visual icons that discriminate if the work is produced entirely by AI algorithm or by a real person with the assistance of AI tools.
Just like it’s done with leather in clothing.
What’s the difference between using AI art and the dude who did ultimate FF and was tracing over porn
at least tracing requires SOME creativity
Look at it this way, ai would have never done what Johns and EVS did with the Lantern corps. Hal's parallax suit inspired the the design of the sinestro Corp logo. Plus we wouldnt have gotten all the other details about the corps that they explain in some interviews or forwards of the GL books
Coming from a computer scientist and visual fx artist that has both coded forms of generative AI and made art in the film industry I can see both sides but have some thoughts.
1.) The idea that AI are is just combining art together is a massive oversimplication, part of the reason this is so difficult legal because it is definitely not as clear and dry as that. I can't explain the process here, it is incredibly complicated, but I believe that both sides should attempt to understand to some degree how neural networks work as they try to engage with the issue of AI art.
2.) You mentioned you were surprised this wasn't used more widely in the industry, I conclusion I have found thus far along with many of my connections is that it simply isn't good enough. There are extreme problems with character consistency, temporal coherence, and creative direction that cannot be solved very well with current iterations of generative AI. It is incredibly hard to set dress a scene, to have a character appear consistent both frame to frame and from shot to shot. The technology is moving very fast, and it is very likely that there will eventually be technology that will be able to overcome these limitations in the future, but that day is not today. I am no comic expert, I watch this because I like it, but I don't read it a ton, but I imagine these issues would be serious issues in the comic world as well since currently it would be very hard to go panel to panel creating a Batman character and having it be the same Batman character with no changes to his design or suit over the panels. So, ironically, studios aren't really going to pick this technology up until they are able to have sufficient creative direction in a scene to do the things they actually want to do with it... at least that will probably be the case until a make "make a movie" button gets invented.
3.) So there is a lot of simplification of what work goes into generating an ai art in the video. You only mentioned prompting, which is sort of true in some software. but in software like stable diffusion, it's node based and you can connect things together, use other tools like controlnet to art direct the poses, you can also plug in depth maps, segment images, color palletes. You can iteratively upscale, iterating over an image to help you get what you want. It actually reminds be a lot of Houdini's node based system. This makes it much easier to control and people can use software like dreambooth to put in their own art collections and train their own work. So if the artist were to come out and say they used stable diffusion to help them make this, if they trained on their own art, and used the controlnet systems, tools like instantID and IPAdapter to art direct it. Potentially they trained there own art deliberately into it. At what point is this actually a problem? Legally speaking, AI art is not copyrightable, unless you do a specific amount of transformation to it so if an artist used it as a base and then heavily tailored it... I'm not sure I have a problem with that, especially if they are working from their own dataset and have this massive workflow of 50-70 nodes to help them accomplish something that is incredibly unique. And if something like this is unacceptable, how is create simulated fx like fire, smoke, water, dust, ice in a film differ from significantly from that when the workkflows are actually quite similiar? Now I am not trying to invalidate one side or another, I just think these are some things to consider here.
4.) I really don't like how people have started to just accusing things are AI, it reminds me of the days when people would just accuse everything as CG, for example, the Kate Middleton video. This one seems very obviously not AI, and if it were AI, whoever did that, please hire me I want to know how in the world they achieve something so absolutely incredible as that, because they managed to animate all the hair fly aways, and really small muscles in her face with it while having bugs flying over her and everything. There were some weird things happening in her lips, but I am pretty sure that is just the compression of the video I watched and I watched her wedding ring and it doesn't dissappear the way people claim it does. Anyway, I am not convinced that is AI, but the problem is when people do that, then someone gets canceled that doesn't deserve to be cancelled. They don't take Kate's announcement, a very serious announcement, seriously, all becuase of baseless accusations. The comic issues with the joker seem less black and white to me, and like I said, I don't know a lot about comics, but I know that human proportions often look terrible in comics (I am looking at you infamous captain america picture). I really don't think that looking at proportions is enough to cancel this artist, I haven't seen the nipple missing photos so I can't really comment on that. It seems very clear to me that if the art I have looked at was generated with AI, that it has been very heavily tailored just based on my knowledge of AI's limitations, so to some degree the artist in question certainly did a ton of work on it anyway. I don't think it's fair to them to treat them as guilty with a bunch of really kind of baseless acusations when we don't know if it is or to what level the art was worked on and haven't even really decided where AI fits as an ethics issue in the entire thing.
5.) What makes the ai issue interesting to me is that it is not black and white, there are some aspects that are easy to say "yeah that is definitely morally wrong" but the bulk of things are much more complex than that imo.
I have been seeing AI stuff being used even in my little town in the UK it's wild.
You dont get credit because there are style models that can just change the drawing style so the ai can still use your art to understand what something is supposed to look like, then its no longer your art, you get no credit cause there is no credit to give.
I like to see ai art like that one episode of Spongebob when Mr.Krabs retires and the krusty krab is remodeled to be "Krabby Ol' Mondays". You could either get a nice juicy krabby patty made by spongebob, yeah you pay abit for that burger, but you know its gonna be good cause Spongebob made it, or you can get one of the Krabby ol' Monday's krabby patty that looks great and edible but on the inside, its just a bunch of things meshed together to make a weird, almost grossly silver slime just immitating something good. Ai is fun to play around with to make some cursed stuff but using it as a profit making machine or a cheap shortcut isn't a great idea
When it comes to comic book companies, I think that if it's the artist using their own style to finish an issue in order to avoid delays, then that could be an acceptable usage of it, but they should also only use that as a last resort type thing. Maintain their normal schedule and habbits to be able to still do the art style reliably, but if they're backed up and its going to cause significant delays then maybe. Would anyone think differently?
The high pitch ME, idk but I was dying 💀💀
Just here to watch him run damage control for DC.
I'm going to be honest I believe it is perfectly fine for an artist to pump their own art into an AI to generate more of their own art because. The controversy that people have is who gets credit for stolen art people who are using other people's art styles or art anything but when it's the own artist I don't see that moral problem now being there you can't ask who gets credit it's the original artist but the original artist is getting credit
I agree, it's his own art and it's basically an algorithm using his own art to make more of the art he created, not someone else's work.
@@jmbeats3308 exactly that's why I think it's dumb even though I'm not part of this conversation or even known this was being had but I think it's dumb to get mad at him for using it. Because if you're going to get mad at him for anything technically what people should be mad at is making his job easier to be replaced if that is an AI who did a good job of making it look like his work LOL
Honestly I still don't like that idea, yes it's nice people's art doesn't get stolen but using generative AI still leaves with an inferior, heartless product.
@@LotteYansson Sure, if its his own art. But how are we sure it is? He could just as well be lying and we would never know
AI art is not stealing from artists. That's a myth populated by commercial artists who feel threatened and want to skim from its success.
Without a statement it feels like fallout 4 everyone paranoid about synths in Diamond city
AI art is kind of a gray area. If you are actively profiting off of it, especially when you have the means to pay an actual artist for it, then it's a bit scummy. If you are using it for references, then it's pretty cool to be able to input some key words and get a rough idea of what you are visualizing in your head before committing to the piece.
Mangastorian is back??? Yippie!
Lmao catwoman lookin like black cat from marvel 💀💀
Marvel does have the beter characters
7:45 IF you go to the panel where the bat family are facing Bruce and Joker issue 143,. Not the one where they're leaning up against the wall, it's the one with them stepping out to Batman, Tim Drake's pose and face is identical to one for Pennywise.
I can’t hear the phrase “AI Art” the same way again after hearing it so many times in this video 😭😭😭
I use ai art to get inspiration for landscapes. It's difficult for me to translate landscapes into a less realistic style and still look good, so ai has helped me obtain reference images that serve as an approximation of what I'm going for. After I generate some images, I begin drawing my own background transformed off of images already transformed from thousands.
What I'm doing is WAY different than replacing real artists with ai. It's a tool for artists. Not a free replacement for artists
Guttenberg Press Paradigm.
Photography took over hand painted murals.
Human touch has a sense of unique obscurity vs the mechanized AI
Can't create but it can master recreation
Since this was first invented, I feel like it’s here to stay, and it will be used to enhance, and augment something someone actually made. There are music videos that use AI, and for what they do with it, it’s amazing: Disturbed Bad Man for example. Or SINGULARITY by Seraphim ft Tyler Ennis, and this one is incredible, if you get a chance, watch the video, it’a very much about this topic
I think the dumbest aspect of this is some people thinking being an AI prompter is being an artist. The rest idk.
Alright I'll chime in on this, I am an indie writer and have worked on multiple projects that have been sidelined or stalled which caused me internal conflict and with me trying to make this career i had a large build up of depression for what i have passion for. I found AI art and began my own journey to make graphic novels doing this, i published about 7 of them and learned a lot on the process with studying layouts and other venues since as stated projects had stalled or i couldn't flat out afford an artist with already struggling to keep afloat. Then the ethical implications started circling and the morality came into question and i started to distance myself and began to resent my own work and my capabilities as a writer. I never once copied, ripped off or tried to mimic another person's work and already feel down on myself when I was using this as a therapy service and trying to get my name out there but now with AI art i'm no longer servicing it. But currently i'm trying to get artists to remake the books I did and hopefully can get there at some point. In my opinion most of this book from DC might be AI as a service tool or crutch, not entirely sure but based on my thousands of hours using it i'd be willing to say it was assisted.
that is very nice of you. i am an artist myself, and i can see how at first glance our work can be seen as somewhat expendable in the face of ambition, like when trying to create novels. but i really appreciate you taking the time to assess our value and condemn the use of ai. you shouldnt resent your work though, especially now your taking us into account. thank you very much for siding with artists and hiring real artists for your work.
The Big Two is a shadow of its former self.
I noticed while i was reading it on release day i was practically trowing a fit
At this point... I think I would prefer if they used AI writers.
Well how deep is the rabbit hole exactly? There is that famous drawing of Da Vinci the vitruanin men (i dont know the english name) but if is the domain public rule of hundred years is anything to go by then we got a bigger problem,
Dracula is used on both Marvel and DC
He might of used tracing cause if u look at some shots of the hands and lighting in 143 it looks rly good
That's exactly what it is. The artist is a known tracer and posted videos of him drawing the "AI panels"
It is a hard topic to get an opinion about it. For one side, I can see the usefulness of AI Art as a tool, as you said, I dont have money but I need a banner. For other hand, I can also the point of I want a new and creative original paint/comic. But if we extend the idea of generate art, what happens with artist that do colleges? People well knows as Dave McKean, that has a lot of covers for Sandman that are colleges. Did he told/mention where the images cut it from? Now we can talk about how some artist use PS as base for their art, they take a photo and start working on it and modify to end look like other thing. Is this part of the conversation as well?
For me, I think, I will like to know if was "original" or "Generate with AI Art", so I can take a decision if I want to buy/consume it or not.
Audio is super low for me on this one, I'm cranking my volume up so loud just to hear ya, bud.
An ai can recreate an work by Michelangelo 1 to 1 and it would still not be considered art or beauty, the only Way it would ever be considered art is IF that Ai gained a level of sentience and Chose to do that with no input.
1:42 One issue I’ve been pointing out with the common concession, that many make, that small companies/bands/people/etc using AI because they can’t afford a high level artist, is that doing so can somewhat derail the professional art ecosystem. People become better artists by doing more art, and likewise people become better professional artists by doing more professional work. The way a young artist becomes a more competent professional is by getting work. The way they get more exposure to get more professional work is by getting the work from those entities or individuals who cannot afford a higher level Artist. By removing those lower level jobs you prevent the development of entry level professional artists and create fewer opportunities for people to develop into professional artists.
I hadn’t ever really considered it before this video, but if you could pay a license to a ChatGPT or something else and wall your ai off from everything else and only feed it your images…. That would be a hell of a tool.
pretty sure you can do that with stable diffusion for free
In one of the points in the Joker Cross thing, an argument is made that "He doesn't have nipples" rewinding I can literally see he has nipples
It wont matter until the money stops flowing into it, if Ai art is profitable it will continue no matter what. Ai art will be so good that we wont be able to tell if its fake or not in the long run, or with a well made prompt, or hand fixes to it. The best Ai art out there are ones that that haven't been discover.
The fact that AI Art can’t be copyrighted is huge, however the only way to truly create an AI without ethical issues would be to hit the reset button and only allow AI’s that train on images that are public domain, or purchased images. And I can already feel the AI tech bros vigorously typing that artists don’t have to pay for images they’re inspired by… but I’m sorry… it’s just not the same thing. If you are using images as a foundational component to a product you are producing, that imagery needs to either be public domain or paid for. The only reason it wasn’t to begin with is because the most popular data set was collected under the false pretense of being “for research.”
misconjecture is my new favorite word...
Every artist out there is like “FUCK NOW WE HAVE TO DRAW HANDS AND FEET EVEN BETTER! DAMNIT!!!” Lol but in all seriousness this AI crap is concerning.
Bob Kane would’ve loved AI art
Unless Catwoman was always drawn like that by him or in that book, thats black cat.
I… don’t know. I’m used to be pretty sure it was ai, until I started using ai image generators.
I know, I know, they’re evil. And they are, but my curiosity got the best of me and I’ve been playing with them. The hands look exactly the same on both sides, no extra fingers or joints, and upon looking at the image again he had both nipples.
Idk. Still could be.
think they should make an by AI generated symbol, so you see that clearly, I personally prefer normal drawn art
If your hot sauce hasn’t gotten any complaints for being too hot, I’m not buying it
My boi joker has the nips at 4:00 but at 4:15 you say he aint got the nips! Why you body shaming my dude ;(
OMG, if we turn You saying ' A.I. Art" into a drinking game, when the video finishes AA will have record new members. LoL
can you talk about tank girl comic I really want to be more out of what you think about them, thank you for reading my comment
Red hood had a completely red batfleck cowl tell me how tf is it not a.i.
People are reaching looking for something to whine about. Yes, AI art should be dealt with. But this is ridiculous.
Taking a shot each time he says "AI Art"
Oh man do I wanna get some of your hot sauce, I'm just personally not a fan of the jalapeno flavour. Can't wait to hear what's coming next!
With all the contempt the Big 2 have displayed for artists over the past several decades is it really any surprise that they would try to get rid of them entirely?
Next they'll try to replace the writers.
Most comic book writers need replacing. It's not exactly high art.
It's just a new medium people need to get into. The same thing happened with 3D animation, Then from 2D animation... And the best way to look at it is CGI Versus practical effects. It's just has to be a new medium we're gonna have to get used to in use.
No, the difference lies in the fact that someone has to work with 3D or 2D animation, AI is just a machine taking different images and mashing it together. It is soulless, it's not art.
@@LotteYanssonYou are totally correct sir
I loved Joker Year One... But ya that page with "Joker Jesus" was def a thing that made me go "huh?" Like I don't even really understand it in the context of the story. Why is he floating above the water like that?
Personally I don't think it is AI. But it would make since for them to try it. If they were going to use AI art, putting it in your biggest book would be the ballsiest but also best way to see if it could pass. But I personally don't think DC would do that to their golden goose. But who knows, we live in a weird world right now
As a person who does both it’s a tool but not the indefinite answer, it’s a lazy fast food… a cruel defined piece of leftover art mashed up like gumbo . 😂😂😂
I think ai art should have more of a fingerprint To make it definitive and easier to point out Because it's only gonna get better and harder to distinguish
That's not a a bad thing.
If he used only his art to train the AI, then it wouldn't be theft. I wouldn't read it, but at least he wouldn't be stealing other people's stuff. Now, if he had used other people's art to do it, then it's theft. End of. As for those who can't afford an artist, you can just draw something yourself. I made my own Twitter banner and, sure it might not be the Mona Lisa, but I didn't have to steal to make it.
I want to be honest I feel like there's one thing that does give me left out and I know some people are going to get mad. But the other thing the other argument for the team AI is literally that they are coding and programming some of these programs yes some are not but that is another big thing there is time and effort into getting the right one
I say it ok to use it on a minimum level like dreamwork did with one of their villains to make her look better but no in a really big way
at some point in the near future we won't be able to tell the difference from AI art and digital or hand drawn
Good.
they might have use a bit of ai but only with heavy supervsion from the artist themself for art drafting perposees bacly.
A.i Art adds extra fingers and always when A.i Utilize superhero insignia or symbols it will always distort the symbol from side angles. A.i also cannot always keep the designs consistent in terms of facial and body looks . only a real artist can keep the consistency. so i believe its his own artist.
Cuz this is my whole thing I'm pretty much on the gray side of it all I see both points I get both points I hate when one side tries to be little The Other Side by leaving out points or not giving credit to something else or the other I completely agree people should not be losing their jobs because of AI but also at the same time. My stances I like art because one thing 2 when it comes to even distinguishing when we say all these little flaws what if those little flaws. I think I saw a tick tock or some video where a person was basically trying to see someone can distinguish an amateur artist to an AI artist and what came out was those flaws we talking about oh yeah that's what tells us it's a i it was the amateur artist
One day very soon all products on the shelf at Walmart will no longer have people advertising the product, but AI generated images with the product photoshopped in.
It’s already happening on Snapchat, pure AI generated advertising that costs Pennie’s to produce in the sake of saving money.