Figured that since it's the new big thing sweeping the globe, and how it'll likely have a profound impact on media going forward, I decided to open up a thread specifically to discuss the topic of AI art generators like Dall-E, Midjourney, and the like.
It's a polarizing subject, but I think there's merit in debating the various issues surrounding it.
Such issues include "is it ethical for AI art generators to be trained on data scraped together from copyrighted works, and how is it different from humans getting inspiration from art?" and "what do you see as the future of commercial artistic endeavors going forward (comics, game asset creation, animation, etc)?"
EDIT: Expanding the topic to all forms of AI-generated art, including creative writing and music composition.
There's also a more general thread
Edited by Mrph1 on Jun 22nd 2024 at 11:56:23 AM
A coworker told me that his young son (he's like 7? 8?) asked him if he could use Suno to generate songs.
I found it interesting that his son knows about these things (well, I think they did mess with Suno once before) and wanted to play with them, calling them out by name.
He previously showed his son things like the game What Beats Rock (go check it out, it's a clever use of AI), and other AI generators like using ChatGPT to write surreal crossover bedtime stories like Super Mario and Barbie going on a picnic, and DALL-E to make ridiculous pictures.
@Morning Star 1337 I'll make the big disclaimer I'm saying I meant this in an Exact Words sort of way - "Comes across as". So, yes, it's pretty vibes-based, even by definition.
But as for what gives the vibes: at a certain point it starts saying things like "Ooooh, I love that idea!" and even once (paraphrased, obviously) "No, the Big Bad should not be going into fights themselves, they should have a Dragon".
Similarly I asked it if in an idea I had was too bizarre and it responded with "Yeah, that idea is weird, but weird is good. People remember weird".
I'll note it is a bit sycophantic, which is a bit of a double-edged sword (it will never actually get frustrated with you not taking its advice), but it can be talked into telling you if it thinks your idea is inadvisable.
Leviticus 19:34I think right now its really difficult for AI to get over the plagiarization and "it creates bland generic looking stuff" stigma though because the moment you know something is ai, that is one of first things that comes to mind. Like right now its gone far enough that "it looks like ai generated" is used as insult to artists who don't use ai as well.
I kinda wonder that even if you manage to use it to create something that doesn't look like derivative of something else how hard it is to surpass that stigma. I definitely have a gag reaction to ai generated stuff.
Edited by SpookyMask on Jan 10th 2025 at 1:32:51 AM
To put it bluntly, this is an attitude that exists for the most part exclusively in a few select online spaces. Artists working with AI have already been accepted within the traditional fine art establishment, and the general public really doesn’t care one way or another. Assuming this attitude is pervasive is an indicator that one is trapped in an information bubble.
I'll say for my part I'm really surprised to learn the public doesn't dislike AI-generated art. I encounter complaints about it far more often than defenses of it, though perhaps I am in those circles.
Leviticus 19:34Can you provide the list of established groups that fully accept the AI-based "art"?
I treat the generative AI output with disdain mainly because the companies that sell them treat actual copyrighted art as public domain so they don't need to pay any artist their due. Plus the output is often so bad I'd done a better job at it - and I am no graphic artist.
Generative AI as a technology is interesting and promising to be a good tool - but the way the corporations use it means that people are getting robbed. If an artist uses AI and trains on his own stuff (and stuff that is actually free to use) to make it faster to work on the task, then it's acceptable to me. But actual good art needs an artist with something to say, with enough skills to actually make it.
Name any institution you consider to be relevant in the fine art world and they’ve probably worked with artists who use AI. Sotheby’s Mo MA, Gagosian, Tate Modern, Victoria Moro, Perrotin, White Cube, and dozens of other major galleries and museums have worked with AI artists. AI has been in use in the fine art world since around the 1970s, it found acceptance there much earlier than its adoption more generally.
It’s also worth noting that what’s personally acceptable to you isn’t the last word on what’s acceptable in the arts, but that’s neither here nor there.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 10th 2025 at 8:11:00 AM
They should have sent a poet.I do have to ask, do you actually hang out in artist circles? Because I'm not sure why you are very confident in saying something I haven't seen xD
Also, don't americans comment on how home computers were still rare in 80s a lot, so how the heck they used ai for art in 70s?
Like, I'm about as skeptical of that claim as the old claim that ai can't replicate things from its database one to one, I've seen examples of it that it can definitely recreate material from things used to teach it.
Edited by SpookyMask on Jan 11th 2025 at 12:36:54 PM
I suspect that some people are forgetting that the online digital artist space is not the total extent of the art world.
Social Media art groups have very strongly rejected AI generated content, but they don’t get to overrule art galleries, meat-space art groups/artists, private collectors or the general public.
Edited by Silasw on Jan 11th 2025 at 12:34:23 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAI-generated content in 1970s? And it's in modern art galleries?
It seems that we are likely talking about different things. What I am talking about is LLM prompted images generated by neural networks that uses a large database of graphic data as a basis. Such database often contains other people's works without any contribution or compensation. And it wasn't widely available 50 years ago. I believe it's a recent development.
There are ongoing lawsuits and new laws written as we speak. It cannot be a 50-years established field. DALL-E appeared in 2021! It isn't even clear if AI-generated content is protected by copyright.
![]()
The fine arts world is a 552 billion dollar market worldwide, with shows at prominent galleries and museums bringing in tens of thousands or even millions of people. I would politely suggest you try stepping out of your bubble a little bit.
LL Ms can’t generate images. As the name suggests, they work exclusively with text. Image generation is done by different types of neural networks. Your question, if I recall, was about the acceptance of “AI-based” art. What’s widely considered to be the first use of AI in art is Harold Cohen’s AARON AI, which he developed in the 1960s. Works created by AARON have been exhibited at a number of museums around the world, including the Whitney and the LA County Museum of Art. If your question is whether there are fine arts institutions that accept art made with present-day AI software, the answer is also yes. A number of the establishments I listed above have exhibited works made with DALLE and Midjourney.
As a whole, the fine arts world isn’t nearly as resistant to AI as the commercial arts, because it’s long been understood that the thing that gives fine art its value exists outside the physical qualities of the art itself.
They should have sent a poet.
Money laundering is about as prevalent in the fine arts as it is in any other high value market. Real estate comes to mind. The regulatory framework in place worldwide to prevent money laundering more or less functions as intended. There are plenty of more relevant criticisms of the art world, most of which have little to do with this topic.
Either way, any ruling on the legitimacy of the international fine arts market made on this forum would be somewhat laughable, not to mention entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Fine arts institutions have an immense amount of financial and social power, and have been broadly okay with AI in their halls for a while now. Digital art is a small playing field compared to the arts as a whole, and the attitudes held in certain online spaces for digital art aren’t necessarily reflective of the arts or public opinion as a whole.
They should have sent a poet.Eh I still don't really trust fine art establishment as an authority of any kind. They believe random splattering of paint is worth buying and rich people in general are quick to get hyped about AI stuff in general.
And again, they live in their own rich people bubble, so considering them above the other artist spaces feels kinda absurd. Public opinion is its own thing(I don't think there is overally opinion on ai art specifically, just curiosity about ai in general?)), but trying to compare fine arts establishment and public opinion is silly because fine arts establishment in itself is far from general public as its small elite kind of thing.
I also find it silly that you are the one who bought up fine arts as proof ai generated content isn't overally pretty despised in artist circles, then when people criticize trustworthiness of it, you are suddenly like "irrelevant and off topic". As if the fine art establishment didn't matter at all when talking about reactions of artists to ai art in general and it was going off topic in the first place
Edited by SpookyMask on Jan 12th 2025 at 5:57:13 AM
This stance is similar to saying you don’t believe in mountains. Whether or not you trust the fine arts establishment, they are still the de facto authority in art.
This response makes it clear that you have completely failed to comprehend anything I’ve said.
To summarize: you questioned whether it would ever be possible for AI to escape a stigma attached to it, stating that even unique artwork made with AI would likely inspire revulsion. I pointed out that in the art world as a whole the revulsion you mentioned doesn’t really exist, and those attitudes are typical of online fan art communities rather than artists as a whole.
Whether or not elite art institutions should be trusted is you drifting off topic, not anyone else. The trustworthiness of these institutions is irrelevant to the point at hand.
They should have sent a poet.Its not about failing to understand, its about lack of trust. I don't trust your take here, because I disagree with it. Because to me its about whether it can escape that stigma for general entertainment audiences and hobby circles, not the fine arts money making industry.
Edited by SpookyMask on Jan 13th 2025 at 1:11:05 AM
Yeah, I think it's less a question of does the fine arts establishment like it, and more how representative they are of the general population or even necessarily artists in general.
Leviticus 19:34

I haven't seen AI-generated videos but I do think you're onto something.
I've gotten into the hobby of using Chat GPT to write stories and to come up with ideas for things (I've been having it write down ideas for a HOI 4 mod idea I had, for example). I've also had it create tokens for my D&D campaign, some of which are decent.
The key thing I think is that a lot of people approach it the wrong way. Essentially, a lot of people use it because they want what I'm going to call "anystuff" (not any specific stuff, just stuff, anystuff) and use the AI as a tool to make anystuff. Indeed, this is sometimes literally the case: Someone might, for example, run a youtube channel that's simply reading AI-generated text. What the text actually is mostly doesn't matter, it's just anystuff.
It makes sense that if an AI is made to create content by someone who doesn't really care that much about the quality, it produces nothing of particular quality.
Instead what I do is talk to the AI's ear off about an idea I have and brainstorm ideas with it until the AI itself comes across as passionate about the idea. Then I have it write, then I review what it's written and tell it to make changes accordingly.
These are two approaches that would naturally produce different results.
Leviticus 19:34