My guess is that AI’s first big victim for graphic design will be stock art. Previously, crap like that background asset would just be stock purchased from Getty or Adobe stock. Now it can be generated.
I’m already starting to use it instead of paying for bullshit licenses.
I've been using AI for school and work, as God intended: give it the raw, have it do the grunt organization work, and then proofread to correct anything.
There is very little to say that hasn't been said. For an example of our limitations as humans, there's only 50ish unique plot lines in the English language. To expect each person to be completely original is asinine.
It's a tool, one of many in my toolbox. People who are just flat against any and all AI or LLMs are behind the curve.
For an example of our limitations as humans, there’s only 50ish unique plot lines in the English language.
How would the unique plotlines be determined by the language they're told in? Why would the amount of plotlines be based on human cognitive capabilities? None of this makes sense.
Either way, "unique plotline" doesn't mean anything, from the perspective of literary or narrative studies. There's no universal, objective way to dissect narratives, and they cannot be boiled down to a distinct number of basic models. There have been attempts to get to the most fundamental narrative model (Greimas, Campbell), but they're far from widely accepted.
People who are just flat against any and all AI or LLMs are behind the curve.
Art is, by itself, not something that has "the curve". If you're doing something with very practical goals and need hyperproduction, sure, but art is not necessarily made or consumed with such a logic.
Pretty much.
People very frequently complain about AI taking the jobs of artists. But if the money was never actually going to be put on the table for artists to claim, I really don't think that was going to help much.
That doesn't mean I hate artists what do, absolutely not. It's just that artists are people and people are limited in how much they can do at any single time.
For the past couple of months. I've currently been waiting on multiple artists to finish up their commission queue. And one of which I'm worried I'll have to turn away because of a variety of life changes in my life that's led me to losing my job and me having reduced income.
As of right now, the costs of generating a picture with a tool like Stable Diffusion or DALL-E has been pretty low, the former even being free if you have the right hardware. And these systems manage to be almost always available, as well as being capable of working in a matter of seconds.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that these tools are only good at painting the bigger picture. They have a tendency to choke on the smaller details. And I would personally rather wait for an actual person to be available to work on something original that's also capable of filling a niche that AI models have yet to be trained on.
This entirely disregards the fact that the training of these models was done on human artists' work without consent or renumeration. As it is, it is not "AI", It is just a glorified plagiarism machine. Not to say it isn't impressive, but it has already stolen work already done by artists and further stealing upcoming work by mashing together older works.
There's ways to do it ethically by training on artwork with permission kind of like how Adobe is doing it, but that isn't going to have as wide of a reach as the other free ones.
but it has already stolen work already done by artists and further stealing upcoming work by mashing together older works.
You keep using that word "stolen", I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, AIs do not "mash together" works from their training sets. This is a very common and very incorrect conception of how they work. They are not collage generators or copy-and-paste machines. They learn concepts from the images they train on, they don't actually remember fragments of those images to later regurgitate in some sort of patched-together Frankenstein's Monster.
You're correct but it's still too early and most people haven't spend enough time with AI to fully understand. Maybe they never will.
Like the classic quote says, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Graphic designers aren’t the first. Automation ended a lot of jobs for decades. Ai is just a form of automation.
The fun part here though is they dont have copyright on that art. If any of the "stock AI footage" becomes iconic, its public domain.
Dicey spot for a studio to be in, but it does save some bucks, so they are plowing ahead.
You should consult with a lawyer first. The amount of misinformation circulating on the Internet about how AI art is all public domain is enormous. That recent court case (Thaler v. Perlmutter) that made the rounds just recently, for example, does not say what most people seemed to be eagerly assuming it said.
im also someone who has been misinformed on the AI art copyright status. could you explain how it actually works or link to a resource that does? i tried searching around for a bit but couldn't find a clear consensus on it.
There isn't anything conclusive yet because there's still very little legal precedent. There was a case where someone made a comic which was essentially machine art with text over it, and there was one where the creation was completely unguided. In both cases they were denied protection because not enough human input was used.
There has yet to be a case where there was a greater amount of human input, such as using a method like controlnet to guide composition.
I think it will eventually come down to proving that a work involved significant human guidance rather than just luck.
I should note that in the case of the comic, the text would still be fully copyrighted because it was written in a conventional way. So someone couldn't simply republish the comic, the comic as a whole would still be copyrighted. And also as I recall that wasn't a thing decided by a court but rather just by the copyright office, which is the lowest rung on the deciding-what-the-law-actually-means ladder.
In the specific case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler was making some strange claims that were pretty obviously wrong IMO and the judge was basically forced to rule that the art was public domain because every other option was kind of nonsensical.
Basically, Thaler was arguing that the AI itself should hold the copyright to the art that it had generated, and that since he was the one who had run the AI he should be assigned the copyright as a work-for-hire (like if you employ an artist in your company to make art for you, the company is assigned the copyright). Thaler was insistent that he himself didn't "make" the art.
So the judge quite reasonably went "AIs are not legal persons like humans or companies are, and in order to hold a copyright you must be a legal person. So the AI itself cannot be the copyright holder. Thaler has explicitly stated that he himself is not the copyright holder. That means that in this case there is no copyright holder for this piece of art. No copyright holder means public domain, so this piece of art is in the public domain."
The common argument for people who aren't just trying to make some kind of strange point about AI personhood like Thaler apparently was is that the AI is a tool that a human is using to make art, like a paintbrush, and so the human that used the AI is the copyright holder. As far as I'm aware this argument is far less settled because it actually requires some thought, as opposed to Thaler's which was pretty straightforward to come to a conclusion of "this is silly" about.
Neither do they have copyright of the stock art they used to purchase. The complete piece, however, including pip boy, is not AI generated. Someone put this together, put effort into it, which easily qualifies it for copyright protection, even if the background is AI generated instead of bought stock art.
I don't even mind the use of AI art in this context, but the fact that they couldn't be bothered to do a little touch-up speaks a lot to the quality that can be expected from their show.
Their absolute mangling of the Wheel of Time tells me exactly what to expect from this show.
I didn't even get past 30 min. After seeing what they did to Mat's family and character I was out.
Perrin is already married? Nope, out.
They did Mat so dirty the actor playing him peaced out before they finished filming the first season
The LOTR show that they spend a cool billion on is awful as well...
But Egwene could totally be the DR, you guys...
🙄
That means no copyright- woohoo go nuts!
Quoting the U.S. Copyright Office's own guidance:
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection
Don't go nuts.
This is a viral marketing campaign. I hadn't heard of the show, now I have. It's a fuck you to artists and a planned rage bait to get people talking about the show.
Yeah I thought so, there would be no way that they'd screw up like that unless it was intentional
I'm a little skeptical that it's AI generated because a lot of those details could be the result of kitbashing, which is especially common with concept art (here's an example from Guild Wars 2). It could be they just grabbed a piece of concept art, slapped some promo stuff on top of it and called it a day. That said, considering how much of a hard-on Hollywood has for AI, I wouldn't put it past them to generate promo art with an AI.
I wasn't planning on watching it anyway, but I wanted to throw in my two cents.
That car is such an AI dead giveaway.
That’s clearly not kitbashing, when you have a car completely backwards and don’t even bother to fix it. Why would the perspective be mostly correct yet be backwards? You’d have to pull from two sources that had a) the exact same art style, b) have the same perspective, yet c) have one of the cars be backward. And finally d) not give a shit about it to correct it.
Well this is already taking points off for sure. But let's see if the show is good. If they stay true to the games and create a truly unique show, maybe it will be worthwhile.
The current fallout developers aren't even staying true to the games anymore so my hopes aren't high for the series
How will they stay true to the games? It’s not The Last of Us where you literally play through a story. Fallout is all about exploring the wasteland at your own pace and shaping the world as you see fit.
Every game has had times when I’ve sat and seriously considered a choice that had massive consequences and mixed both benefits and steep drawbacks. Like in The Pitt, where you have to decide whether to kill a baby’s parents in front of it to liberate the people enslaved there. On a tv show, they’ll have the main character… mull it over and make a decision for the audience? How do you even translate that?
Exactly. They just have to follow the in game universe and how it operates. Obviously they can not have us as watchers dictate what happens but instead transfer that look. , Feeling to the person on screen. As long as they get the universe of fallout correct it will do good. All they have to do is make a good story if they fail at that then gg.
Without someone pointing it out you'd have not even noticed that it's AI generated. As most people don't look at this art longer than a second.
Sad
Just throwing this out there because we don't know for sure - but my hope is that Amazon paid their graphic designer/illustrator the regular rate for something like this and they saved themselves 90% of the time it would have taken by using Stable Diffusion and then took the rest of the day off.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
