Ai generated 3d models( how long?)


Royalties would have been a step in the right direction. But unless the government gets involved and mandates/forces regulations, there’s actually a lot of greed and spitefulness behind the organizations who started A.I.

Just this month, there was major controversy from Deviantart when they announced their A.I program and discreetly tried to train it on ALL registered users art. It was only after intense backlash and at the last second did they drop the hidden requirement of not training on artists by default.

So it feels like this controversy is going to be around for a while. When I first heard about the tech, I thought it was trained on stock images, or generic things. But sadly, there have been plagiarists who were caught taking snapshots of artists working in their livestreams, and feeding it back into their robots to sell as their own commissions.


I think there are always going to be people who beat around the censors and what not, but i don’t think you need many artist to create an adequate number of options. Most artist have very similar art styles and rendering styles.

machine learning could also decipher color , rendering, and stylize proportions without an artist’s work. If you hire a team of artist who understand shape language and all kinds of rendering from brush strokes to clay style. It won’t be long before ai art will be generated without name ______ of artist, instead you’ll simply use terms like ‘clay rendering’ or ‘water color’ and the source material will come from an original ai generated image without artist parent image as the 1st source.

Another example of this is applying the proportional rules for caricatures and letting the machine take a photo of a person and applying caricature features to them with some kind of algorithm that stretches and exaggerates the features of the face that are most pronounced, without the image being made by the hand of an artist in other words.


This is anecdotal, but I had a discussion with some A.I enthusiasts a few days ago on the subject of training robots on art fundamentals. Just as how regular humans learn from books and practice making their own anatomy, color theory, perspective, I imagine it would be a great idea to have an A.I Art Teacher who is just as knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, they didn’t seem interested in that direction.


Its already kind of here, we have ai apps that turn real life videos into anime shaders or photos into cartoonize faces without using artist work.

for learning , id say these tools can teach an artist how to stylize objects and faces, if the ai removes the lifeless expression , as there still some of that.


For what? No art is stolen. No copyright is broken. And to have a look at images and to learn from it is not forbidden. It is also not forbidden to type in a artists name into a console.

There is nothing illegal in the whole process. It is imho not even unethical. Even when it feels wrong to some. Studying art is something that artists does since art exists.


if they are sampling images and its traceable, and someone is making a buck off of copyright images they do need compensation. No different than sampling copyright sounds and music.

anyways i really didn’t wanna get into this kind of discussion as i think it’s kind of boring, id like the thread to focus on updates in this topic if something new pops up.


Sorry for dragging the discussion into this direction. But it is imho important to understand that AI does not copying or sampling nor stealing in any form. The AI learns the rules. And creates unique art in the style of artist xy then.


I have one more comment to say about A.I.

Even though this might sound hypocritical, should we really trust faceless corporations to push these new tools on us?

When 3D CGI first came out, it was still a joint effort between artists and software developers. It even lead to the creation of Pixar, whose research is 100% artist driven and still influences the medium today.

But A.I peeps like Emad Mostaque, never had an art breakground. In fact, his background was being a hedge fund manager. And even the Deviantart controversy I posted earlier, they only started pushing A.I once they got a new CEO who also never had an art background either.

So while I’m not directly accusing everyone of pushing A.I to be some kind of Lex Luthor-esque supervillain, I do have skepticism whether this tool does have the artists best interest in mind, or if it’s just another way to syphon more power to Billionaires/Big Tech.

Contrast this to other businesses like FurAffinity or even Newgrounds, who’ve taken the stance to ban A.I art on their websites. Would it be fair to say that actual Art driven websites are trying to protect their audiences, if they knew something was off about this tech or feel like they weren’t consulted?


I don’t think it changes much, Ideas are going to come from the best artist who still have the most creativity, AI software is relatively open source and so many ai apps are going to pop up. i don’t see everyone using the big tech apps exclusively. Artist knows how to find the right blend of mixing art skills with ai. in my case, i wanna use it as addon to 3d illustration so i can control the design and use it as a compositor. this allows me to still have my pulse in some originality.

Also like to add, digital art in itself has never been looked at as sacred in the traditional art world. To this day people who paint and draw on paper or canvas frown upon digital artist. It’s kind of interesting to see photoshop/3d artist complain the same way.

What I think Ai threatens most is digital art production and cutting away jobs, lowering massive production cost. Things that use to take months reduced to weeks. Some people hate the idea, but let’s face it, technology is supposed to make it easier not keep it the same, and what would be wrong with small studios creating good quality indie films with this tech? you’re going to see a massive boom in small studious with large amounts of films with interesting ideas being produced in rapid rates.

I think there is still stigma around ai art for the ‘stealing others art’ and the ethics involved around it. It may just be websites protecting their artist work and not having it be absorbed by this tech. I’m fully for them exercising that right, i just don’t think ai tech needs artist work, there are plenty of ways for ai to absorb legal content and get granted access to massive library of images and allow it to prosper, once you remove the unethical part, it’s going to be beneficial.

The most benefits being animation not costing a billion. While we are still nowhere near close to it replacing high level cgi like avatar movies. The thought of billions spent each year in movies with cgi with all the problems in the world like world hunger , one can argue about the ethics of a society that values entertainment over human suffering.


Right Mate,
Anyone who thinks this tech will be sued out of existence with current copyright& trademark law is woefully ignorant about such legal matters.

It will some time before we see AI created 3D animations on par with even a decent unreal engine cut scene, to say nothing of a Disney /Pixar level production.

However for 2D illustration I estimate three years before no one will be using App like Daz studio or poser to make stills.


It is nevertheless interesting what happened with the Stable Diffusion 2 release. They removed quite a few data sets and the connected artist name prompts. Greg Rutkowsky in the term will not longer produce a image in style of Greg Rutkowsky. So they have reacted to the critics. And removed the biggest concern. Even when there was nothing illegal at it. This makes on the other hand SD2 worse than the first SD1 release. It’s a downgrade.

DallE and Midjourney did not do such thing so far.