Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I did and I am happy to do this.
I agree with Melissa's sentiment.
I would also argue that it is, at the very least, intellectually dubious to say the AI is just mathematics. The AI uses machine learning algorithms, and one of the more interesting facts about these AIs is that the programmers themselves don't really know how they work - Just that they work. Also, the datasets used to train these AIs come from humans - Human artists, photographers, etc and the end-users. All those phrases and all those AI generated images that humans form and humans pick through provide additional data for tuning the AI's outputs. That which so many people say is so much fun and so cheap is actually contributing to making the AI's output look a certain way. An AI has no aesthetic sense, no comprehension of what pictures show. The idea is for the end users to train the AI to produce what would be considered a correct answer for the verbal input. And because humans are so willing to do that, the AIs are improving all the time. The programmers are also making other AIs that will spit out phrases to deliver specific image outcomes. All of this, of course, is part of the larger goal to obviate human artists.
Really, at this point, it's up to humans to decide whether this project succeeds. If humans recognize that art is the birthright of humans and should not be surrendered to mere machines, then there is hope. If humans say, "Oooh this is so cool and cheap, I want this," then it will be worse. I expect the latter because most people aren't very good at making art. I think the AIs will have their day. I don't know how much of art production will go to the AIs, but it will be a horrific percentage. Art made by humans will also persist, but as a specialty, a luxury, a proof of human stubbonrness. In that environment, far fewer humans will be able to make a living at it. A few will, because a few always do. And as a percentage of population, very few can do it now. But I think trends exist on a pendulum, and though the pendulum is swinging towards AI today, it may swing back toward human artists in the future.
It's like you are saying that art made by humans becomes extinct because of AI, so all the 5 year olds will stop drawing their stick figures because the AI can do it so much better?
Why spend time on a jiggsaw puzzle when an AI can show you the end result so much faster?
I feel dirty right now
I was fooled by a creep on facebook who posted some incredibly cute and seemingly innocent anime child images created with Stable Diffusion
it wasn't untill I read other peoples comments and looked at his page I realised he actually was a creep
That's rather more extreme than I had in mind, but sort of maybe? It's not impossible. We have so many devices and kids get them younger and younger. I think about what goes on in schools - Less art class, more devices, more math! There's a loss of cursive writing because it's expected that everyone is going to type on a device. That's actually documented. There's a plague of myopia because kids are staring intently at a 10" screen (or smaller) for hours every day. This AI thing is packaged a lot like a game. People love games! I have this word game I play on my phone. Seems innocuous, but I wonder what AI I'm training just by playing it.
Thanks
This has been done already, and I don't see anyone laughing.
https://www.photomosaic.com/about/
Robert Silvers invented the Photomosaic®
AWARDS AND NOTABLE MENTIONS:
The National Gallery in London selected Silvers’ portrait of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates for
their “Painting the Century” exhibit, highlighting influential art of the 21st century.
Mastercard’s Photomosaic was awarded First Price for print advertising at the CIMA Awards
LIFE Magazine’s Photomosaic cover won a Merit Award from The Art Director’s Club.
Premiere Magazine selected The Truman Show Photomosaic poster as one of the top 50
movie posters of all time.
Photomosaic Jigsaw Puzzles were awarded Puzzle of the Year honors by the Australian
Games Association.
A Photomosaic calendar won Japan’s Minister of Education Prize.
Commissioned portraits for Senator Barry Goldwater, Enzo Ferrari, Oprah Winfrey, Paul McCartney, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Kathleen Kennedy, Vice President Al Gore, and H. M. King Hussein of Jordan.
Nineteen countries have commissioned Robert Silvers to make collectible stamps.
Well that's what Daz (Poser) users mostly are. Directors.
The parallel is there.
I have to admit, some of what the AI gives me is so beautiful I could weep
I am a bit of an addict but also my eyes are open and I see the detrimental flow on effects of this technology
not because of the technology itself but because we already know how corporate greed uses technology and it's not for the betterment of the human race
that path is well trodden
Some stiff regulations on music and how you can reproduce it.
If you use things out of the box, sure. Plop a figure into a scene...hit a pose button...add some conforming clothing...drop in a lighting preset...hit render...done.
But there's also the other side of the coin where a user tweaks everything and nothing is used out of the box. Custom lighting. Custom characters. Custom poses. Custom textures. Custom sculpting to fix clothing and/or poses. Postwork. Overpainting. Concepts of light and shadow and composition. Those are all artist skills.
I've asked this before, I'll ask it again. I buy a pose set and have to adjust the pose to make it work the way they're supposed to. When does that pose become mine after an hour of working on the pose to make it work correctly?
If you have Future Samurai Animations with Sword for Genesis 8.1 Female and Noska 8.1 | Daz 3D and Noska 8.1 HD Add-On | Daz 3D and put them together, you will have to go through every frame to adjust one arm and hands to grip the sword. I think it's the left hand, but not sure.
Oppppssss
"If a person were to take other peoples art and cut them up and blend them together..."
I realize I pretty much know what I think the point you're getting across means however...
People do it all the time it's called photobashing and photomanipulation. And photomanipulation is a 21st century art form that came about because of computers.
While photobashing and photomanipulation art use photos that aren't 'generally' copyright violations since the images used are either free or purchased (in most cases; and not), still alot of AI art falls directly in the path of 'photobashing and photomanipulation art' that is mostly a 21st century invention via computer. This is why the people that do that have been doing it manually such as concept artists who create work using this method have somewhat adapted to it as a tool.
The thing that gets me about all these discusions is that humans learn art techniques in nearly the same methods that you have to teach an AI even if all you're doing with an AI is 'feeding' it images that it needs to 'see'.
"...but somehow this is ok because it is done with a computer"
How do you draw a line with something if a human can paint just like Van Gogh because all he or she had to do was 'look' at his paintings. You're not directly painting any one of his paintings you're just painting in his 'style'.
Well. Then. You can put the 'Art' right there back next to 'Director' if you like. But you're listings points out what though? My point wasn't about artist skills.
In order for 'you' to use Daz Studio to the best of it's ability you need to supply it with 3d content. It is a merely (or mostly) a staging area or a blank canvas without that 'content'.
And with that content you 'direct' it. In doing so you also 'manipulate' it.
One can also create that content oneself.
I had read your previous comment as a comparison to saying that Daz output is the same as AI in that it doesn't require skill and therefore isn't art. My bad if that was not your intent.
My response was just highlighting the concept that while Daz sure can be use as a drop n' render, it can also be used as a full artists platform and toolset. Just like a digitial camera that comes with an auto button.
video
I created a cutout blimp cushion from an AI render and rigged it
https://www.facebook.com/1653360584/posts/pfbid0uHhUjMaL25Uecgr9dnYM6Rm83LQkkRfu7LY21u8o5yMRufrHWa5rV7DSH3uk8mEsl/
I like pudding.
I just thought I'd say that while this thread wasn't closed yet.
I feel every once and again one should reflect on their fondness for pudding before it is too late.
Can. Yes. I'm not taking away from those that can. Didn't think that I was.
Is there a much higher percentage of cant's?
Do you like to make it yourself or do you usually wait for someone to make it for you?
Does it taste better when someone else makes it? Or does it taste the same no matter what and that's what makes it likeable?
On a lighter note your fondness for pudding isn't going to change any time soon I suspect and possibly neither is this topic.
I think I'll dig out my "ex machina" dvd (note for parents: nudity, violence, and adult themes). The antagonist there (well, one of them) was just trying to move things along to their inevitable conclusion. When I heard his explanation I was literally shouting at my TV "My GOD, NO! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!?!". Like the person back in the 80's (or was it 70's) who was excited about using bacteria(?) to grow computer processors which could be implanted in humans and our soul would move into the "chip", he probably wasn't. And surely that was the point of the writters of "ex machina".
There are so many different reasons why people will use these AI "art" generators. However, I still feel that:
(1) if there's any art creation going on it's not by the people typing in the discription. That's the most replacable part of the process. Search engines and web sites have been building collections of "these words go together" and "when these words are together then these results are the most popular" for decades.
(2) whatever laws/rules apply to AI generated music should also apply to AI generated art and AI generated writing; and visa-versa.
(3) pretty pictures are all some people want (and there's nothing wrong with that). Some people who use a clip-art service available to many people might switch to AI generated images so they might have something more unique.
(4) actual artists who usually get hundreds or thousands of dollars (or more) for their work are going to be particularly screwed. Most people who usually buy their stuff will probably continue to buy their stuff. But, I suspect many people don't care if they have an original (someone) and couldn't afford one if they did care. They just want a new cool background image for their computer. And this could dilute the market and drive down the popularity of the artist's work if all of a sudden it's everywhere.
(5) There's going to be an increasing amount of confusion about what is real and what itsn't. I mean which images are actually art created by a person versus cranked out by some AI image generator. People will probably start acusing artists of using an AI image generator when it's actually the result of a great many hours of human imagination, talent, and effort.
(6) there have always been people who will over sell themselves and their abilities. They're going to love AI generated images. I wish all the forums would require that people give proper citations for the images they post. There's nothing wrong with noting that it was AI generated, or something they did in DS/poser/whatever then postprocessed with gimp/Photoshop/Stable Diffusion/whatever. But, sadly, there are people who don't see a difference between creating art and copy/pasting an image that some algorithm pooped out.
(7) we don't actually have artificial intelligence yet. Just difference engines that solve math equations to compute a solution. Hopefully, we'll never have true artificial intelligence; but, sadly, I fear too many people think it would be a good thing, too many people want to prove they can create it, and too many people believe they have a way to profit from it.
Off to watch a movie.
Here's an okay use for AI generated images...
As inspirational material.
I wanted to see how well I could reproduce the AI generated image from memory, on my iPad... like keep the whole thing on the iPad...
Clearly I failed miserably, but if I had made the pumpkin rounder, and sent it to my desktop computer to texture in 3D Coat and render in DS, with a little bit of post work with a better image editor, it would have come out a teeny bit better...
But only a teeny bit.
Realistically, I did most of this while waiting around in the car for my kids, so it's not gonna be that great.
I like using online AI image generators for dumb joke related images... and sometimes stuff it slaps together make good inspirational material for modeling or sculpting... I've got a bunch of weird creatures it bizarrely cobbled together while misinterpreting my prompts for something else, that I intend to model at some point.
I just have a thing for cats in armour
have posted others in other threads, did more today
these made using DeepDreamGenerator
Well that is great for you, but like I said, a good number of people disagree. They disagree very strongly. I have a feeling you might start to think differently if somebody copied your style so perfectly, and then used that style to make an animation that goes completely against your personal beliefs. Then an unaware viewer could easily mistake this garbage as something you made. And then you get constantly asked questions like "Dude, what was up with that story you posted the other day? I didn't think you were...that kind of person, I lost respect for you." You wouldn't even know what they are talking about. Also, if you were more commercial, I think you might be a bit more apprehensive as well.
The physical media piracy battle is a completely different thing. That weighed copyright versus consumer protections. Keep in mind that a user has a right to create a backup copy, that was a core principle behind the issue. DRM can be a barrier to consumers, and sometimes so much so that DRM creates a controversy.
Do I need to mention Daz Encrypted Connect?
So AI art generation is an entirely different thing. Also, unlike piracy, the average person is questioning the use of AI as well as copyright holders, rather than just saying "big corporations suck". Just look at this forum. In any given forum you can often find the posts for and against a topic are more evenly matched. But it doesn't seem that way here, does it? It is not unique to the Daz forums, either. There is a lot more public pushback against AI generated art.
Even people who are excited about AI generation may admit they are apprehensive about what can come of it.
You don't see that with these other issues that have been brought up. AI generated art is quickly building a bad reputation. And with so many people from all walks of life expressing concerns, yes, it is only a matter of time before laws get passed to tackle the issue. I can already picture the EU jumping on this. In fact the EU is already drafting laws concerning AI in a variety of sectors, so the precident is there. I am confident the EU, with so many of its members having a long history of art, will begin to address AI art generation as well.
I will link a story about the deceased manga author which got an AI generator days after his death.
https://restofworld.org/2022/ai-backlash-anime-artists/
The reaction to this generator was almost universally one of disgust and revile. The piracy debate never sparked this kind of united disgust in either direction. If people were pirating his works after he died, the discussion would have a very different feel. There would be a group of people saying "so what...he's dead now" as an excuse for piracy. You don't see that excuse being used with the AI generator. The guy who created it claims it is a homage, but many of the mangaka's fans do not seem to share that opinion. Go ahead and look up the twitter post and try to find the positive reactions to it. You might find a couple, but they are vastly out numbered by the posts of disgust.
@outrider42
What style ??
I am all over the place Dude..this new tech will not be argued out of existence with hypothetical horror stories about
my "style" being copied.
Winter is coming .... thus for ALL of the special snowflakes that thought they were so rarified..
Look on your works ye mighty ..and despair.
https://www.youtube.com/@AutodidactAnimotions
I think the technology will go forward. Legislatures tend to lag years behind technology and legislative responses tend to be hit-or-miss with a lot of loopholes. Lawsuits seem likely to emerge, but no way of knowing which way that will go. And countries without concept of intelectual property, copyright, etc will likely give the AI generators free reign. Europe will probably do a better job than the US on that score, but other nations may render it all moot. Meaningful pushback likely requires people to pay into the fight against it - No money, no legal fight. That's why the music industry has pointy sharp teeth and visual artists mostly don't and why the companies behind the AI generators have the terms they have.
I only drop my comments here so I can be right about all of this, years into the future- when someone comments and resurrects this thread.
It'll be nice to be right then too. (no LOL necessary)
I cheaply predict the future based on what is already happening now.
AI is not creating ART. You are entering prompts (programming) You are using keywords (Programming). Data analysis is going on behind the scenes, statistics and other number crunching,
At best you crafting. And because Arts & Crafts are so close together, many confuse the two.
Art is created by judgement, which is why the incorrect phrase "Art is subjective" is still used to this day to justify feelings about a work.
-----------------
You want a cat riding a horse? Enter prompts and generate several versions of the same result and pick one. That is curating after crafting.
Pick one as a "starting point" or use it was to add-on//complete another work - that is using AI as a (asset creation) TOOL.
The fact that you PICK one, is where the judgement comes in that is turning the result into "Art". Without your human decision making, any generated image/content remains nothing more than a possibility.
It could be turned into something more if you choose to do something....with it.
---------------------------------
I predict
1) AI-powered art will be given its own prefix or suffix. Like how any computer or machine-assisted anything gets the term Electronic or Digital added. (Even the term Virtual is a label)
Once it gets its own label it will get its own lane. You can then embrace or reject the work, as a whole, as you see fit.
2) Artists will be faced with "taking a credit hit" from using certain tools to create their work. (just like right now) Soon as you need to add a prefix or suffix to your title, it diminishes because most do not know where the tool stops and the human work begins.
3) Laws will not matter. The highest tiers of anything are gatekept. Your style//talent/results are almost irrelevant. Your method is what matters and more importantly, WHO YOU ARE is the final vote.
Once you move beyond the lowest level, How you did it and Who did it - become everything.
----------------------------------
I already know
3 Factors Validate Art.
Peers - they know WHAT you did and HOW you did it because they do it too. (Can't fake you way through them)
Critics - they spot trends, know context and are aware of who did it before you and who else is doing it beside you. (can't fake your placement)
Audience - they know what they like and dislike and judge effectiveness. Either your work works or it doesn't.
------------------------------------
AI doesn't change any of that.
Have a fun Friday.
Shutterstock and OpenAI will team up to sell AI-generated stock images
https://www.engadget.com/shutterstock-ai-generated-stock-images-dall-e-133903619.html
Shutterstock will start selling AI-generated stock imagery with help from OpenAI
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23422359/shutterstock-ai-generated-art-openai-dall-e-partnership-contributors-fund-reimbursement
Illustrator discovers her art was used to train an AI art generator
https://boingboing.net/2022/11/03/illustrator-discovers-her-art-was-used-to-train-an-ai-art-generator.html