AI is going to be our biggest game changer
This discussion has been closed.
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
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Humans are dumber than frogs. We'll build the fire and fill the pan ourselves, if there is a profit to be made doing that. Evidence suggests we've likely already done it and the temperature is only just beginning to rise beyond what we can bear.
when you can video a selfie in your nightie and get your own handsome mage at home in your kitchen doorway portal
Huxley wrote 'Brave New World'; Big Brother was Orwell's '1984'. Both dystopian, but Huxley's world was more insidiously consumer-friendly.
Very creative! And mesmerizing in its editing, None of the cats moved during the take.
in one of the ai Facebook groups I follow
sadly the link will expire in a week
If they do Pull the plug on Ai in it's current form (Regarding copyright) people may start looking elsewhere to scratch their creative itch... might not turn out to bad for places like daz.
AI has become the most game-changing movement since the Industrial Revolution. Is it surprising that the resulting paradigm shift will potentially upend society as mechanical automation did? Nevertheless, most people who discuss this topic inevitably focus on the wrong aspect, IMO. Again, not surprising, since artists are the ones who are most passionate about the changes that will take place. But, as Bluejaunte noted, it's an interesting conundrum and it will cause many to rethink issues that previously went unnoticed. For example:
If commissioned to create an image of a Kakapo, what is the first thing you would do? The vast majority of you would probably Google it for lack of awareness of this rare flightless bird. Can any of you draw or paint a picture of it without such a reference? Would you go as far as to hire a photographer to stalk one in the wild or would an internet image search suffice? After you had gathered several different photos of the bird (as every good artist would) and completed your artwork for your client, would you consider tracking down the creators of the reference images to compensate them? To take things further, as an artist, could you create anything at all without some sort of visual reference? There is a very interesting article about a man who was born blind, yet created paintings (https://theconversation.com/how-a-blind-artist-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-colour-93872) with accurate colors. It is a very outstanding example of human creativity, but what shouldn't be overlooked is his father's role in training him to "see" images and colors. The obvious, yet often missed message in all this is that the same rule applies to machines as to humans: if there is no input, there is no output. Conversely, if the input is substantial, meaningful results can happen. For humans as well as machines.
So why haven't artists historically charged fees to human onlookers of their intellectual property? Primarily precisely because we are humans. Art, most art, is meant to be shared and admired - the wider the outreach, the better. When patrons walk into a gallery, the artists aren't suspicious that they are examining their work in order to duplicate their style. Even if they were, it takes humans years of examining and experiencing inputs for us to develop our artistic talent to the level of professionals. Humans need more time. Humans love to admire art. And many humans eventually pay for it in some fashion or form. So historically, humans looking at an artist's work have not been perceived as a threat but was actually their goal. Then came the machines.
Let's be clear: Machines don't love art. They are not attracted by aesthetics. Their primary (only?) objective is to analyze it in order to fulfill their programming. They are not consumers or patrons who wish to one day purchase or even create art of their own. They were designed to do one thing and do it well - to assimilate input and create output defined according to prescribed algorithms. While it used a roughly similar method, gathering data from sources outside itself to reach seemingly independent conclusions, it does it way faster than humans...and therein lies the threat. The efficiency and blistering speed of machine learning has turned an innocuous action, examining artwork, into an existential crisis for many artists. But for all such paradigm shifts in the history of mankind, the central issue has never changed and it doesn't change here. The machines aren't the problem. The problem is us.
AI isn't evil. It isn't good. It doesn't need rights because it doesn't desire anything. Too many people are focusing on the "I" in AI and not enough mention of the "A". The "A" stands for artificial. It isn't really intelligent. It doesn't want to "steal" your art. It has no motivations or dreams or inherent goals. AI is a tool and therefore an extension of the user. Let's not forget that. If you feel your IP is being stolen, it isn't AI that is doing it. Stealing implies a thief. Thieves are motivated by greed or need. AI has neither feeling. It was created to accomplish a general task. Humans use it for specific purposes, whether to enhance their own creativity or to duplicate Disney characters for illicit intentions. This is an age-old problem. As humans, we are our own worst enemy. Someone created a hammer, we use it to bludgeon our neighbor. The Chinese invented explosive powder, we use it to create mass destruction. A new computer technology arises, and many will use it to foment chaos and for selfish gain. Because this is who we are.
Nevertheless, AI isn't going away. Even if the court cases are found in favor of artists, the economics of creating art will change more in favor of the corporations and those who are inventive enough to take advantage. We can gripe and complain, but the future is as crystal clear as the past. Jobs will disappear (remember the Shoemaker and the Coachmaker? I thought not) and other professions will arise. And people will use this technology to do nefarious things. AI is groundbreaking tech and I plan to use it as far as it helps me meet my creative requirements but let's not mistake the villain in this story. Mankind always takes the low road.
Ultimately I think AI will do all the jobs. By then we had better come up with new models of living that don't rely on people making money to survive.
I suspect that if the existence of people does not depend on money, or other motivating medium of exchange, then we'll have a lot of uneducated, healthy, idle people with time on their hands, open to mischief. Based on my nearly 7 decades of observations, not necessarily a good thing.
I'm open to suggestions.
One of the best posts in this whole messy thread.
An uneducated and purely hedonistic society is one scenario for sure. I have a different theory though. I think at some point we are going to augment ourselves to keep up with AI. A chip in the brain containing all the human knowledge comes to my mind frequently. Think about it, already today we sort of augment ourselves with a smartphone that can google everything for us. GPT-3 is paving the way for a more conversational style of inquiry. What if all that was implanted in my brain? Instead of asking a question and trying to understand the answer, I would simply know. Every single human being would know everything there is. A democratization of knowledge if you will, education no longer necessary.
As for what we are going to do once we don't need to work anymore? Well, that's easy. Same as now, do whatever you enjoy. Hobbies, creative endeavors, whatever the hell you want. While the AI runs the world and produces everything we need, all within safe parameters to not destroy our planet of course, you will live a wholesome life full of entertainment.
There are obviously huge question marks. What even is this, a sort of technocratic socialism? No money or wealth also means no privileges. You're not gonna live in a nice mansion, for example. You're gonna live like everyone else. And by you I don't mean you or me or anyone here. I really doubt any of us will be around to witness it. I could see this maybe in 100 years.
Every statement you've made about this kind of AI is incorrect. You are thinking of the previous paradigm, Turing Machines on Von Neuman architecture.
I don't know if it is still true, but in the early days, a Neural Net was a "Brain Simulator" that mimicked the actual structure of the brain and the actual operation of neurons, how they process stimulus from other neurons, and in turn stimulate other neurons themselves. Today there are surely sophisticated optimizations, but underneath it all, I think it is all still just backpropagation to adjust weights, exactly the same way that learning occurs in biological brains. And that is an extremely important point that should inform everything we subsequently assert about AI Art.
Because for that reason, it is more difficult to make a distinction between a human looking at a work and being inspired by it, and a digital computer doing precisely the same thing. Again, not a philosophical point, but rather something that is simply true when one considers a correct understanding of how AI actually works, instead of just making analogies to the closest technology that we do understand. The only philosophical assertion is made by those who think carbon is somehow privileged over silicon, which is necessary if one doesn't also want to be required by intellectual honesty to assert that if AI generated art is not art, then Human generated art isn't either.
So historically, humans looking at an artist's work have not been perceived as a threat but was actually their goal. Then came the machines.
That part that I agree about - is the assumption/understanding that all this futzing about with art is supposed to lead to SOMEONE BECOMING (some kind) OF ARTIST.
And it's not the Machine - and has nothing to do with the machine.
The Process breaks down into the 3 Ps.
Product --- Process ---- Person.
It's a circular relationship. For AI, the Product is no longer a question.
1) The Product! The final result is, in many cases, BETTER than other similar attempts/works/traditional results. Not an argument anymore. So much so, there's an amy of (mostly non artists) running around claiming EVERYTHING that looks good must be AI. Yes, even painters are being told to stop using AI and go back to painting. And if you've been sharing your Daz work, there's a whole movement trying to guess if it's AI or not. And since it has to be asked at all- there's evidence that most results have moved on from 7 fingers and crossed eyes.
2) The Process is in question as programming IS NOT an artistic activity. Picking the best result from a dozen attempts is curating (at best). Anything after, like postwork and corrective actions is the exact same process it has always been. "See something wrong, go fix it." "See something that could be better, go make it better" "Looks good as is, leave it alone".
3) The Person - is the big hang up. The real mistake is assuming --> It's ARTIST versus non-artist + AI.
No, it will actually be ARTIST versus ARTIST + AI.
And the user is a consumer. It is the ego-mistake of *most* artists to assume EVERYONE wants to be (their kind of) an artist.
Or an artist at all.
This is the first time, a non-artistic process has led to astistic results.
Maybe AI is a performance enhancing drug.
In some circles, you want to know what the best HUMAN can do.
In other circles, you want to see super-human feats no matter what it costs the players.
IMHO Any debate wether the AI images are “Art” is really moot in the modern world of transactional utilitarianism.
It reminds of the old mocap vs keyframe argument in the early 2000’s.
Hand keyframe enthusiast were adamant that it was not
“real Character animation” if you used mocap.
ultimately the practical utility of Mocap made the whole argument moot.
Well then, some crucial points have been made by other people, concerning some of the potential misconceptions. Other points will be lost. I'm okay with people finding out the wild-west way.
So the artwork necessary for training...
- will be made by whom?
- is already enough in quantity and quality?
"Artist vs ...." -> everyone + ai vs. artist who creates genuine images. Every popular or well known style can be copied to death in no time, at least with "fair use in the face". And yes: on the job-side, artist+ai equals three other dead artists (without ai). Now you can argue, four artists with ai would be the same balance as before, but you'll compete with more than the four, and not only those which we now consider artists (in the same field). In the latter case, you end up with all people using the ai, resulting in data that probably should not be used for training the ai. Realistically you could have a style until the next ai gets trained again.
Thus you have the principle of a consumer (ai) killing off the producer (artists creating genuine images) in the end. Explain the incentive, and who is going to pay for that. Of course the issue may not arise, if ai just stays "not good enough". However with improvements, you'll have that fundamental question, staying with age old training data, so maybe ... trick people into creating genuine artwork? Or maybe start confiscating? Make the tools free for artists, if they create genuine new images? (The last thing may work, but means cloud service domination, and attempts by virtually anyone to get stuff for free by feeding in slightly modified generated content.)
Yes, yes, you can try to "improve the thing" in magic ways, which is a future bet on not yet existent technology, in addition to the question, if you can prevent reflow of generated images into training data at all. As a topping you get questions about concentration of power, desire for filtering and control, if the real thing only can run in a cloud. Keen outlook? What's the odds?
To recap: this is not just like a new tool, nor like a detection-system trained under supervision on data that is not affected by the process. It's a predator-prey scenario, potentially.
Maybe we should be taking the names of those men and give them to real women, so they can give them a wide berth.
That is fudged.
This.
If we are going to disqualify AI generated art, we would have to disqualify DAZ Studio generated art as well, and anything rendered or simulated, or built from assets. Probably everything where the artist didn't crush the berries himself and scribbled on a wall with a stick he broke off of a tree.
I think these are probably the exact same arguments used every time there is a disruptive technology, and those who are so opposed are those who have not yet used it, and thought how it might actually benefit them.
Things are only going to ge "worse" and at an accelerating rate, so it seems like acceptance is the only rational course of action.
That's not a very good comparison considering that one Daz user could use stuff 100% out of the box with no customization whatsoever and just hit the render button and be done and be happy...while another could customize everything down to making their own poses, morphs, and retexturing assets before rendering and then follow up with even more work in post...while a third user could be somewhere in-between...so that's like comparing apples to dingos. The gamut of what comes out of Daz is entirely too large because it depends on what the user puts into it.
i think it's more like comparing apples you bought in a store and apples you grew yourself... they are all still apples.
I suppose I just don't see as much of a difference between those two types of users as you do. I like @SolitarySandpiper 's analogy... they both are greatly assisted by technology that would make the head spin of a person from just two or three decades ago. Everything you cited while characterizing the advanced user in your argument is still using a great deal of technology.
Using a sophisticated modeling program to make assets is much, much closer to just pressing the "Make Art" button than it is to creating assets without any assistive technology at all.
AI will no doubt take over more and more, and we will all have to move higher up the value chain. When has this ever not been the case? As an analogy: I'm a software developer by profession; I suppose my predecessor was a guy with an abacus. My job (for the time being) still exists, but I no longer worry about having made arithmetic errors; I take that for granted now and I concern myself with things more important to the overall value of the software systems I create. And thank god for that.
Sorry, but now we are astray.
AI tools in general - ok, no questions. But the current generators in particular - no way to compare to DAZ3D. If you know what a license is, you may see one of the differences.
For those who still think in terms of inspiration, as opposed to judging these systems as encyclopedic , how inspiring is copying watermarks from getty images?
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-lawsuit-getty-images-stable-diffusion
Wendy, which generator did you use and would love to know the process for this if you would share. Thanks.
(posted 11.02.2023 12:35 gmt+1)
Another amazing example, very inspirational - thank you for sharing. All the best for You.
I use Visions of Chaos but the Webui option used here is basically Stable Diffusion Automatic1111 img2img batch render
VOC just has all the different machine learning models nicely included in a package that installs the models and updates for you
I split an iPad mov file into frames (using Hitfilm Express)
used Img2Img with a prompt
I created the gif in Gimp
The canvas may be digital, but to create art in Daz, or any modeling software, one still needs to understand the concepts of composition and lighting...and even story-telling. Just like an artist who uses their hands to paint or sculpt out here in the real world. The rule of thirds is still the rule of thirds, even if it's applied digitally. Just because someone can use Daz without considering or even applying any of these artistic skills, because yes one can just use stuff out of the box and go, doesn't mean that all work created with Daz falls into the same category.
Especially with paying DAZ and artists for the purpose. So there already is a selection process with what you buy, which also supports the underlying artwork to be made. That's 100% gone with (the very general type of) generators. Obviously paying anyone for "fair use" or even just large data sets, is not a realistic option. Yes, maybe, like in the baroque era, some will get goodies or even get employed, if a cloud service thrives, but it's nothing compared to the broad areas covered by human-made artwork nowadays. (Speaking training data there, of course. What people create with generators is not my point here.)
Next step in searching on Bing
Thank you. It looks very cool.
So, how could AI actually help me with my 3d art, when I want to go most photo real?