[Talk] My View on AI Art

(As always, this is a machine translation, so please understand if there are any oddities.)

There is already a lot of AI-generated art posted on Pixiv, and I took a look at some of it. As we all know, the beautiful screens are stunning, but there is still a sense of discomfort that is unique to CG. This is most noticeable in the NSFW art of humanoid characters, where the descriptive power changes mainly around the face and body. Some of them are less uncomfortable, and some of the worst ones even look like a deformed character's face pasted on a real human's body.

However, these problems can be easily covered by people who have the eyes to notice discrepancies and the technology to correct them, and if AI evolves, it may be able to handle these problems on its own.

As computer graphics is already the mainstream in the video industry, AI art is outstanding in its delicate depiction of backgrounds, natural objects, and light. As many professional artists had feared, it seems that the technology to draw beautifully, realistically, and beautifully is becoming "something that can be done immediately with AI. Just as computers have replaced jobs that require high computing power.

Although there is a movement to ostracize AI art, I believe it is impossible to erase them, because there are already countless AI art on Pixiv and the technology that makes it easy to create beautiful images without having to be competent is a dream come true for those involved.

AI art is very similar to cheating in games (not in denial, but as an objective view). The results that should be obtained after a long time and effort are obtained without them and with equal or better results without any effort. It is natural that there is a flood of criticism, but in the end it is sometimes the problem of the person in question. They can either learn to feel a sense of emptiness about the results they get from the borrowed material, or they can accept them with open arms.

So is there no future for current art? I do not think so. I said earlier that the decision to use AI art is up to the artist, but at the same time, it is not only the artist who determines the value of art, but also the viewer. And the value of art is not only in its descriptive power.

You already know that the popularity and reputation of an artist is not proportional to his or her ability to depict.

This is especially true in our community, especially in Furaffinity. What people look for in an artist, then, is his or her values, ideology, tastes, delusions, and worldview. The viewer is attracted to the individuality, empathy, and originality of the artist, and the artwork is a part, a means, and a surface for that purpose. I once read a book on artistic thinking that said, "The artist is a plant. Artists are plants. From a seed of curiosity, they grow roots of exploration, and from time to time, a work of art blooms. The flower never blooms forever, but the seed and roots continue to grow in the soil, and eventually the next flower blooms.

In this sense, AI art is after all only a part or a superficial part. Viewers may evaluate only the surface layer, or they may include the artist's sense of values that lie behind the surface.

Fortunately, unlike a game, art does not have a fixed goal such as winning or losing. You can express what you like in whatever way you like and appreciate art in whatever way you like. That is the world of art.

Incidentally, you should think a little more carefully from the viewpoint of work that is paid for. In particular, the safe backgrounds often seen in social games can clearly be handled by AI. This may be a more sensitive topic for creators in the corporate world, but I will skip it here.