|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - gameover
77
« on: January 18, 2023, 05:58 »
79
« on: January 14, 2023, 07:56 »
Wonderful, Adobe & Mat! This new policy is totally in line with abolishing the bonus code for 2023. Screw human artists! Bring on the robots!
I don't think I'll bother with photography any more. I'll get an army of robots and train them to blab text commands to robotic AI software night and day. These smart robots will vacuum pics generated by other robots, re-order pixels and create brilliant new pictures. (some say that's crap but they're only jealous, and live under a rock or something) Soon I'll have a portfolio of 100 Million brilliant AI images on Adobe Stock. I will be so rich! I will buy a villa in some place tropical, heck, I will buy an island of my own! I will buy a luxury plane that makes royalty, presidents and celebs jealous!
Thank you Adobe, you made my day. Screw artists, Robots are our future.
I'm old enough to remeber quite similar comments in the 90's when digital cameras comes out for large consumer audience.
Using these words means you've really never tested the AI tools. It's super exciting; but it's absolutely not easy to generate real good images.
It's not easy to use.
It costs money and it costs a lot of time.
It's relatively easy to produce in random way some incredible images, but it's abosultely hard to manage the tool to produce series of images with steady style.
Of course it will be easier in the next future; and it will become also cheaper.
But, as for photography, you always have to start from a good idea, and you also need cultural, and technical, skills.
Back to Adobe: I think at the contrary that giving contributors the option to produce (and sell!) AI images is a great opportunities to partecipate in production; at the opposite, other agencies like SS seems that will cut contributors, pushing their clients to produce images by ourselves. In my opinion this last way is absolutely wrong, starting from the idea that anyone have clear idea and skill to create any image they need.
One last example I know very well: in movie production I come from times when editing was made with film, scissor, glue... with big pain and time lost. Digital non linear editing completely changed the game but directors always need good editor to work, also to make choices. To have a digital machine that gives you thousand option in a single second doesn't mean that you don't need human time anymore to make your decisions and choices. Machine is fast, human mind has its own timing.
Finally, AI development is impossible to stop: refusing it and complaining about AI is totally useless, it will be the next future for all of us
I totally agree, make decisions and choices is the difference 
80
« on: January 13, 2023, 13:09 »
Does anyone know some good resources explaing how generative AI art works ? A good start would be looking up "neural networks". I was wondering if the AI image is just a mosaic of tiny parts of other images, or does it "paint" a new image from scratch ? For instance let's say we have a prompt where the main subject is a cat. Is it possible that an eye or nose of that cat is just taken from some photograph in the internet ? No, its derived from thousands of cat eyes (or whatever) used to build up a sort of 'concept' of cat's eye, and then drawing a new one accordingly. Which also accounts pretty well for the funny notion the AI seems to have of "hand" 
82
« on: January 12, 2023, 07:22 »
These were technoligical advancements that helped you in your task. AI does the art for you. It's not a tool that helps an artist, it's a replacement.
Gameover explains some points with "AI friend or foe?", on her blog with a very brief history of art.
She calls our attention to the word artificial with comes from the greek philosopher Aristotle in his Rhetoric: artificiality (the quality of being made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.) - very nice!
AI is a tool (1) and cannot do "the Art for you" (2).
1) It's hard in a post to explain in detail such issue regarding onto-technologies of the body but let me try to put it in this way: AI is an extension of your body not a replacement. In the same way that you don't replace your hand with a brush, you use a brush to paint. The brush doesn't paint by itself - you need a human to do it. In AI generator you need to type and work with a prompt: sort of digital code that machine can process your request.
Henry Ward Beecher once wrote, A tool is but the extension of a mans hand, and a machine is but a complex tool. This fits here in line of scientific research into embodiment. But there's disembodiment in AI too. Which basically means that AI feeds on the output to become more efficient- it collects the data of your image to improve future Artworks. So AI is a Tool with embodiment and disembodimentfeatures.
2) AI cannot do "art" for Humans. Art is a representation or presentation of an idea in a shape/form. AI doesn't have ideas of its own, Humans do. Therefore AI cannot do Art but can be extremely efficient in drawing, playing music, etc. Best alternative is that AI it's a performer conducted by an artist. A tool to improve your Artwork just like photoshop is using with mouse and clicks interface instead of a Prompt.
A more correct comparison in advancement in technology would be for example a telephone and switchboard operators.
In my opinion that is a bad comparison because switchboard operators don't create ideas like artists. The task/job was simple connecting cables. They were a kind of cogwheel in a communication system. New technologies made it faster, better and cheaper than humans. Now we all use a Smartphone with social media.
We don't have switchboard operators anymore but how much people you think have been hired in communication companies and social media (youtube, facebook, twitter, tiktok, instagram, whatsup, signal, etc) last 20 years?
None of social media companies existed before 2004 and according to google there are 142,282 people employed in the Social Networking Sites industry in the US as of 2023. Let's not forget about UGC creators which in fact creates everyday content and get paid to feed the channel by social media, ads or product reviews...so a lot jobs here too.
I am not saying AI will replace all art, but it will certainly cause a decrease in artists when they have a harder time to make a living from art (which was already difficult before AI art!) as AI is cheaper and microstock photography and drawings are the easiest replaced by AIs and the first to go.
Things are evolving so to expect this market not to change is to stand still in time. I do agree at some point with Gameover analysis where "plenty of artists will inevitably lose their jobs as soon as their customers learn how to order a piece of art directly at the source, a skilled and most likely way cheaper AI."
I think artists that see potential of AI in their work will continue the path. I already see a lot of UGC creators with thousands of followers only doing AI too.
This week i was approached twice by NFT collectors that want to buy my AI artwork so this can be a new market too. Others will go more for news/events and street life photography (there will always be in demand since AI cannot produce reality). Companies of every kind are hiring people to deal with social media, specially creatives that can do all in one: illustrations/ Shoot photos/videos and editing them.
At the end eventually people will adapt to new reality.
excellent, well written 👏 👏
85
« on: December 21, 2022, 01:41 »
I liked very much your post and think you are right as you say that AI is a tool - but it's a disquietingly clever one.
Your words started a disturbing chain of thought that I made into a post ....
Maybe it's just me, or maybe I've read too much Asimov...
check out https://www.cold-takes.com/ai-could-defeat-all-of-us-combined/
SF is OK, I like it a lot too. But here S<<F...
87
« on: December 20, 2022, 07:06 »
Dont worry about all that.
The next generation of ais will all be very legally trained on OUR images.
Some agencies will ask for an opt in, others will just update their terms of service and tell you to pack up and leave if you dont like it.
Plus there is billions of visual content that no longer has any copyright, which includes some of the worlds greatest artwork.
In the same way ais will be trained in music, in writing, in software
The legal part is probably the easiest to fix.
So you can decide to complain forever or change your job, or find an intelligent way to work with the new technology.
Hi Cobalt, I liked very much your post and think you are right as you say that AI is a tool - but it's a disquietingly clever one. Your words started a disturbing chain of thought that I made into a post ( https://luisafumi-digitalart.com/blog/2022/12/20/food-for-thought/). Maybe it's just me, or maybe I've read too much Asimov...
88
« on: December 18, 2022, 15:57 »
@cobalt hi Cobalt, I totally agree with your thoughtful words. My hope is actually that the AI-revolution we're going trough now will lead to a different status for the artists: whereas the agencies will probably keep selling plenty of cheap mediocre pics (mostly AI-generated but not necessarily), those among us who aim a little higher (and hit the target) will most likely find it much easier to sell their works directly to a choosier clientele. This might be the right time for it to happen. Daumen drcken! 
89
« on: December 18, 2022, 15:07 »
Oh sorry, my mistake. I didnt realize it was just a toy. In that case I wish you much success in your pre-Christmas 50% down sale through your own AI shop and indeed the same for your AI portfolio on Adobe this coming year. You clearly deserve it.
Thank you for your heartfelt wishes, DavidK. I too was a little surprised that people seem to like (and buy) my AI-divertissements, but it wasn't me who made the humankind. As Dale Carnegie wrote, " when I go fishing I put a worm on the hook, although I personally prefer strawberries with cream"
90
« on: December 18, 2022, 14:04 »
I don't need to imagine that, I am one of them - and I don't care in the least. Right, it took me quite some time to hone my art, however I don't need months to create a piece. Michelangelo perhaps... Lol
Lol is right. Your art? Please. AI is not a tool. Its a crutch.
Personally I think you are looking at this all backwards. What took a comparatively short time was for the AI to teach you what it wanted, not the other way around. Making you the tool. This whole debate reminds me of a proverb coined by George Bernard Shaw. Those who can, do; those who cant teach. I never thought that was necessarily true, however in your case Those who can, do; those who cant, use AI seems fitting. I suspect Michaelangelo and DaVinci and all of the other actual artists of their day who themselves were not above using all of the tools available to them at the time would still chuckle a bit if they heard you refer to what you do as your art.
Face it, its not.
"Beware of false knowledge; it's more dangerous than ignorance." (George Bernard Shaw) BTW, what you're talking about is my toy, not my art 
91
« on: December 18, 2022, 09:45 »
What is being completely ignored, and should be front and centre, is the right of a company to use our work to profit without our consent. That's an interesting point that would pose several further questions. The first that occurs to me: an artist looks for inspiration, browses the web, scans a few dozen pictures (watermarked) until a good idea pops up; his or her work produces some profit. To whom should he or she pay the royalties: Google, the agencies that made the watermarked pics publicly available, the unmentioned and untraceable authors...? By the way, I have the disturbing feeling that the agencies watermark the images to protect their own profits, not the contributor's cents ;-) There are more parties involved than the artists having their work used and the customer using the AI app. There certainly are, and they all do their darn best to make money. Some of them quite successfully (I'm thinking of the agencies that cash gold and pay peanuts), others with less success (ourselves perhaps?). In places you even seem to go as far as treating the AI app as a person in order to ignore the actual third parties involved; the businesses making the profit. Far from that: the AI is just a tool - though a very interesting one. As for "the third parties involved" (I guess you mean Midjourney), I think they are just doing their business. I understand the temptation when you are the one benefiting, but imagine being the artists who spent years or decades honing their art to the point where they can spend several months creating one image just to have that work hovered up so you can pump out your pieces with so little (comparatively) effort. I don't need to imagine that, I am one of them - and I don't care in the least. Right, it took me quite some time to hone my art, however I don't need months to create a piece. Michelangelo perhaps... Lol I can certainly see both sides of the argument... Then you know that what an AI produces is definitely NOT a collage of bits and pieces stolen here and there: weren't it a stupid piece of hardware I'd be tempted to say that all it 'steals' is CONCEPTS, and never from one single artist at a time. If here and there you see something looking like a watermark on its product, that's because poor stupid AI saw it so many times that it decided that it must be a significant element of the image - and included it to add some realism :-D
92
« on: December 18, 2022, 08:03 »
The blog post even had a heading Self-awareness?. Lol
Do you always stop reading at the titles? Lol
93
« on: December 18, 2022, 01:19 »
So I just joined discord to generate some images with midjourney bot for fun, and guess what! I typed: portrait of next president of united states realistic high resolutioin... and it generated photo of 4 guys, 3 of them resembling Ron De Santis A LOT!
Very interesting.
Quite an interesting idea indeed! I'm now tempted to try with the next president of the Russian Federation...
94
« on: December 18, 2022, 01:16 »
Today I sold 7 'AI generative': 1 photo-realistic and 6 fantasy. More fantasy.
Thanks Luisa, I would never image that fantasy images could have good market in microstock, for sure you did a really good job 
Fantasy means actually many things: in the popular tradition it's mostly fairy tales, SF, dragons and horror. To imaginative minds it may mean a lot more. It's the art of the unusual, of the uncommon, of the grotesque, of the unthinkable... And it is a lot of fun  
95
« on: December 17, 2022, 14:27 »
Very interesting thoughts, thanks for share
I'm completely agree that AI is a powerful "tool" nothing more nothing less.
It's not so easy to produce good images. I'm working in it few days from now, and in few I can learn (Yes I learned FROM AI :-) ) a lot about how it works and how to produce good images.
It will be a long (or maybe not so long...) ride to technical perfection but in the end it will always needs a human being and his/her creativity to produce something new.
It's a completely new world to discover!
Luisa you say in your blog that you've started to sell some in Adobe stock market, may I ask you which kind of images? Fantasy or photorealistic ones, or both?
Today I sold 7 'AI generative': 1 photo-realistic and 6 fantasy. More fantasy.
98
« on: December 13, 2022, 12:27 »
I was one of the original site owners of the original symbiostock. I fought hard for it to succeed and paid dearly here at microstock group for it. FWIW I still have 2 original symbiostock sites that work and still generate sales. That's almost a decade of sales for a few months worth of work. (Note: I haven't updated anything on them since 2014 because I know if I do they will almost certainly crash forever.) At one point I had 5 symbiostock sites. 3 of them just stopped working for any number of reasons. I am sure the other 2 will also just stop at some point but for me they were well worth the effort.
Symbiostock was a good idea that couldn't work for all sorts of reasons. Regardless, of how people here feel about symbiostock I can honestly say that self hosting does work if you have the right images and a unique niche.
Here is why it works for me and how I am doing it.
I currently have 9 sites live (7 of which I still upload to, in addition the 2 I mentioned earlier)- approx 800-1500 images per site
I sell vectors. (which allows me to heavily watermark them and I charge a premium price for them)
I price my images just below the hourly rate it would take for someone to steal or trace my images.
The 7 modern sites are all woo-commerce based.
I use Elementor which gives me unlimited control over the front end which helps with similars and content location.
I use Yoast for SEO
I have a unique target audience and I have not uploaded any new images to the micros in 6 years.
I am very careful with my keywords (I use phrases not words) and my keyword phrases are unique for that image on all 7 sites.
I spend most of my uploading time optimizing my content based on the Yoast criteria.
Every image (on every site) I upload has a unique file name and metadata which matches the Yoast Focus Keyphrase exactly.
I will also flip images or put them on different colored backgrounds for each my different sites.
I have spent a good amount of time automating the upload process and can upload an image from start to finish at an average of about 4 minutes per image per site.
Unlike symbiostock my current sites are no longer developer dependent. WooCommerce and Elementor aren't going anywhere and I host them myself. As long as I update from time to time my sites are all stable and will probably be that way forever. Hosting does cost a bit a month but for me it is absolutely worth it. My sites outsell all of the micros combined about three to one and I only work on them when I have the time. I make daily sales and one sale is the equivalent to around 40 sales at the major micros.
By uploading only to my own sites my images tend to appear on free sites was less frequently than the ones that I uploaded to the micros. I sell way less volume but at a much higher price and considering what happened in microstock in the last 6-8 years that seems to be a much more sustainable way to go.
Originally I assumed my sales would soften the older the images became. What I am finding is that my older images are just as likely to sell today as they were 5 years ago. Based on this info I anticipate selling images I made 5 years ago 20 years from now.
I am certain there are a lot of people who will disagree with me or for whom self hosting was a dismal failure. I get it and I won't even try to argue those points. It works for me and for me it is far better than continuing to upload hundreds of images a month for .38 cents per sale or to dozens of sites who may or may not be around next year.
Thank you very much for sharing! I find very interesting your point of view and your experience. I think too that a very good niche and relatively few images may be more fruitful than thousands generic ones. Keep up the good work!
99
« on: December 05, 2022, 11:03 »
Hi again, moments ago, a blog article was published with more detailed information on this important announcement. You can read it here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/12/05/amplifying-human-creativity-adobe-stock-defines-new-guidelines-content-generative-ai
Let me know if you have any questions.
-Mat Hayward
Hi Mat, thank you very much! It seems a quite serious approach and a way to clarify all the doubts expressed here. I think too that this is a new creative tool in our hands. One questions please: if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI? Thanks in advance!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
