@Ghoul. The major difference is a human can make art based on real life or imagination of real life. AI can only combine what other humans have done before. That's my point. At some point an AI becomes stale and unimaginative and simply repeats what you've already seen before.

Art is not original? what? I can make art work right now and nothing will be like it. You mean the ideas? maybe but Art Work is very much original. Besides,For an artist their work Is their expression. For a concept artist like in the industry new ideas is their jobs. don't get them mixed.

ok this is awesome

@daggerfall Thank you

She rally looks horny... litterally! Awesome!!!

@Razer About the intellectual property issue though, yes, there should be some legal action taken to make consent clear. For example, when artists upload their art to a public website, the website could be required to have a tag in the meta-data of the image, whereby the artist consented that their work can be used to train AI.
As of right now, unfortunately, we don't have laws in place yet for this sort of thing, so pre-existing non-private images uploaded on PUBLIC websites are currently in a moral grey area, of how they are allowed to be used, because this technology is unprecedented.

@Isencore @Razer Humans learn this way too, whether by real reference or by an artistic reference. Generally, AI are trained on both real life images and art in order to learn what certain things look like in order to create an impression of them.

Unlike popular belief, however, AI does not Frankenstein artwork together, ultimately it is just as original as something drawn by hand. If you show pictures (real and fake) of a cat to a child, then take away the pictures from the child so that it can no longer see them, and then ask the child to draw a cat, is that art theft?
It's even more ridiculous when you consider AI are trained of tens of millions of images, more images than even a human could view in their lifetime, so it truly is asinine to assert the robot's is art theft when the human's isn't.

Whether or not you can appreciate the image, whether it "doesn't put love into the art" is deeply subjective and dependent on your own beliefs.

The thing is AI doesn't put love into the art it makes, like for example y'all ever seen that one artwork of Goku waving a Mexican flag y'all never gonna see a AI put that much love into a artwork unlike that Dragonball-loving Mexican kid. That's what separates AI art from art of a living being, also y'all relying on AI to much ima just tell you there is a lot of books, movies and games that show that it aint really a good idea to rely on AI to much

In the 21st century, any art is not original. In fact, as you live your life, you visually receive a ton of information.
You look at pictures, you watch movies and your brain reads everything that happens. Thus, starting to create, you are already subconsciously copying something. In particular, this or that style in drawing. Therefore, writing that AI copies some styles is strange. People copy too :)
But what surprises me most is the fact that some individuals burn so much because of it.
THIS IS JUST A PICTURE ON THE INTERNET.
We are not at an art exhibition, I do not claim to have painted this myself, I do not commercialize my pictures in any way.
Understand a simple thing, the drawing process itself is a routine, and AI allows you to bypass this routine and immediately visualize my fantasy from my head.
The only purpose for which I post this is to please other people so that they look, visually enjoy it and move on. Be simple