I am starting to see a flood of it on DeviantArt. Almost all the images I am seeing (because I don't want to see yet another naked female, so I choose to only look at 3D or painitngs, et al) lately have been AI.

I don't see it as art. With what we do, especially me since I create almost everything the figures are wearing, there is a skill set. With what I used to do, drawing, painting, inking, there is a definite skill set.

But I have messed with some of the AI online sites. A couple of key phrases and a couple of mouse clicks, and you have an image.

Where is the skill in that? Where is the creativity? It's all in the software. There are some incredible images created out of it. Look on DA. There are some that look photo realistic. The uncanny valley has been crossed.

But there is no skill involved. While some might argue that it lets everyone create art, the imagination, the years of perfecting your skill set, or your workflow is not there. You can learn to manipulate the software in a matter of minutes.

If I am wrong, tell me.

But it's like the old musician's argument that a DJ is not a musician. AI manipulation is not art.

This has nothing to  do with Poser so I  am moving it to The Breakroom Forum

Rokket, if you read the forum threads on AI you will find varying opinions and arguments about the subject.  Look through YouTube and you will find the same thoughts and analysis.  One thing is for sure, it isn't going away.  Is it art, who knows?  But didn't the different styles of art get criticized at one time or another?  I share your opinion but, in the long run, we need to adjust and accept it for what it is, a different form of art.  

Digitell posted at 9:38 PM Mon, 6 February 2023 - #4455422

This has nothing to  do with Poser so I  am moving it to The Breakroom Forum

Ok, thank you.

I don't have a problem with it, as long as it is properly labelled as such or as having some AI input during the creative process.

I think my biggest concern is that I am seeing so much of it now. And on DA, only some of it is titled properly. Most of it you have to search the tags. Some of it isn’t labeled at all.

Hmm, are all DJs musicians? No, but there are some phenomenally talented musicians who are [or at least are known for being] "DJs" first. Additionally, DJs probably belong in the "performer" category more so than "musician" category anyway. At least ones working at a high level, booking shows and filling rooms on their name alone, it takes talent to mix and move a room like that. Lastly, I'd say just about every form of DJing [even the dude slinging MP3s at a dive on a tuesday night] takes as much or more talent than AI art. So let us not besmirch the good name of DJs by lumping them in with "AI-artists"!



While I don't think the "creator" [we're not gonna use "artist", a few keywords and mashing "generate" until it spits out something that isn't a hot mess is an incomprehensibly low amount of effort/input/work] of AI art really deserves any credit as an "artist" [we're gonna call them "lucky-monkeys" instead / enough monkeys + typewriters + enough time = lucky monkey writes Shakespeare], the resultant image probably is "art". It may be a largely vapid imagery created by someone with seemingly little talent, or at least no drive to hone any skill/talent they do have, at the end of the day, it is still a created image, and that is probably enough to make the image itself "art" [at least as much as some of the other stuff that gets passed off as "art"]. I think AI art should certainly be labelled clearly [not that it doesn't do a fair job of outing itself, but that could change as the AI develops] as AI art, and should probably reside in its own section/sub-section of whatever gallery, but I don't think whether it is or is not "art" isn't going to make much of a difference at this point, the cat is out of the bag.

Maybe as AI art develops, the input becomes more complex and the ability to control the outcome starts to become maybe a bit more predictable, then perhaps AI art becomes something more akin to fractal art, at which point there is a talent or skill at least, in manipulating the input to achieve a higher quality output than someone else might. At that point then maybe we do start to give the creator credit as an artist, rather than a lucky-monkey. I think AI art is still in its infancy right now, and we'll have to see how it develops, see if it can become something more than a semi-random image generation tool [I know it's not "semi-random" at a technical level, but might as well be artistically speaking].

Collage [or photo/imagebashing in the digital realm] can certainly be an art form, even at a high level, and the images AI generate aren't that dissimilar at a fundamental-process-level [so far as I can tell] to collage. Both are a derivative form of image creation, re-purposing other images/parts of to make something new. When you remove the artist and their process from a derivative art work tho, you're pretty much just left with image theft, and that's the much larger concern I think.

How and where the AI is sourcing its images is tantamount to how we treat the result. If the AI is sourcing from images that are NOT "fair use"/"public domain"/"creative commons"/etc/whatever then that is far and away the bigger problem than whether or not we can call it "art". If someone starts using that AI generated image commercially, even just pedaling them on coffee mugs or mouse pads of whatever the hot "upload a picture and make you own . . ." site is this month, that's a really messy problem! It'll be interesting to see how/if that ends up being something that is played out in court, and if we could see changes to the DMCA or "fair use" rulings on account of AI art. There's been a several month long battle on ArtStation regarding allowing AI art, and how images the site hosts might/could be used by AI.

I think as long as AI images are properly labelled, and the "reference" material is cleanly sourced, then it is what it is, something for someone to kill time with, that hopefully makes them happy. As much as I might want to condemn it, I think, done right [labelled/sourced] its largely harmless [aside from some people deluding themselves with the notion they're now "artists"] ... for now at least.

As far as "legitimate" [for lack of a better term] uses for AI art? Concept art maybe? I'm sure it's going to get a LOT of use there as you're talking about fairly loose, exploratory images, where imagebashing is common already. Likely to save time/money at the expense of artists no doubt, cause that's how it goes unfortunately, but I don't know that I'd consider it invalid in that role. I also think it'll still require a pass by an actual artist to make it something meaningful/useful before getting passed on to other artists for production.



Also, expecting any kind of standards from DA at this point? Shame on you! If there's been any one unifying trend there in the last two decades, it's continually finding new lows. There's a lot of great art/artist there don't get me wrong, but good grief, does that place ever work hard at stretching the term "art" sometimes, or at least they sure put the "deviant" in it.

For the record, I was not lumping DJ’s into the same ilk as AI.

That being said,, I pretty much agree with you.

The subject of DJ’s not being a musician was an argument going back to before 2000, when I was a member of a BBS callled Home Recording. It was a 400+ page argument that never got settled.

I think, a discussion about "is it or isn't it art" shouldn't be our biggest concern.
For some people it is, what a friend of mine called it "the make art button", for others just fun and then those, worrying about their jobs, the list can go on.

"The spirits that I summoned" ... anyone who knows, how to stop it?

AI, ChatGPT, robots looking like humans, working already in hospitals and private homes ... this all is connected and if not yet, in a very near by future it will be.
We should questioning this problem, I say, that has an importance not enough people think about.

I am one of those futurists who has read so much about how things work and what they are trying to do.

The first thing I thought when I read the thread is that use of 'ai' is why I bought Poser way back when.

I didn't want to relearn drawing with the 100's of hours of practice that is needed to get anywhere.

Oh look, a diorama where I can set my scenes and fly around to snap stills. Yes, 'comic' style replete with perspective already correctly done. I remember reading the origin story for Poser and was struck by "name not available right now" creator's parallel motivations but a talented coder as well.

I read a book, What Technology Wants, and it pointed out what software is going to be able to do. It is also going to drive new technology to drive in that direction. So 'ai' assisted art is simply a black box that accepts parameters. I remember when Desk Top Publishing was panned the same way, instead of layout skill you had a black box that did the heavy lifting (with mixed results).

There is no stopping. Imagine an 'ai' that can read an MRI scan as good if not better than a trained Radiologist (doctor + specialty) and do it for the entire department while in communication with a database that is updated in real time.

I doubt whether it will replace the artist, enhance maybe, and all those clever wordsmiths with their fanciful prompts are simply 'aping' anyway.

What I've seen so far blows. It is dreadful. Yet another self-serving fad being primed by the oblivious who are leading the blind.

30 years ago I started graduate school in Computer Science with an emphasis in Artificial Intelligence. It took around one semester for me to realize that 1) academia is a cult, and a truly sick and twisted one at that, 2) the student loan racketeering industry is committing a crime against humanity, 3) the world-famous professor I had moved 1,000 miles to study under was hiding in a million dollar lab off campus and never even taught classes. (I finally met him for the first time at a Halloween party three years after I left college), and 4) "artificial intelligence" was anything but. It's just a longer, faster computer program that follows instructions, just like any other software.

But if you're trapped in an evolutionary point of view you will never acknowledge that the human spirit exists, let alone that it is impossible to model that spirit. And so, you think you can model the way humans *think*. Never gonna happen.

AI "art" suffers from the same problem. It is not and cannot be inspired. And so it blows. Simply dreadful. Anyone who fears that computers which can't even boot up properly without random errors are going to take over the world, or create meaningful "art", are trapped inside their own Fantasyland. The deranged people who are CREATING the junk AI software are the ones who will take over the world, not the computers or software. (Pssst, wanna know a secret? "The Terminator" was just a movie. It wasn't real. Don't tell anyone.).

AI art is this generation's version of Yoko Ono - people with no talent trying to hijack "art" by claiming that what they are doing is so clever and avant-garde that mere mortals like you and I can't understand or appreciate it. But the truth is, it just sucks.

I've returned to Renderosity recently after some years.

I am sad to see so much AI art dominating the galleries, as in years past pictures that looked really good were always the product of a gifted artist who had clearly spent a lot of time on them. One artist who's name escapes me would render a figure in Poser and then re-paint the image into its final form - they looked amazing.

I was never in that league so it doesn't affect me, but feel sorry for talented artists who might now have their skills constantly questioned from now on - did you really do that yourself or was it AI generated like all those other pictures? 

Where will the next generation of commercial artists come from? If commercial artists disappear, will artwork stop evolving because the AI generators are based on what has been created by humans up till the present day?

Is it me, but does AI artwork always have a certain look to them?

I know this comment is going to be misunderstood but I am going to say it anyway. This image is something I made after studying AI for about 2 weeks.

I always wanted to be a 3D artist but could never get the hang of 3D.  I have been loving and admiring all of you who can create amazing 3D since 2007 when I joined Renderosity.  Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI. I realize that AI still has a long go. For example, AI has mastered the human face but still makes horrible hands and extra body parts sometimes on the subject.  With 3D, the artist controls every detail of the image.  With AI, you are at the mercy of the computer.  You have to keep entering prompts over and over until you are satisfied.  Writing good prompts is the skill.  With that said, I love AI because now I can play with you guys on your level.  

Crystal46 posted at 12:42 PM Thu, 18 May 2023 - #4465700

I know this comment is going to be misunderstood but I am going to say it anyway. This image is something I made after studying AI for about 2 weeks.

I always wanted to be a 3D artist but could never get the hang of 3D.  I have been loving and admiring all of you who can create amazing 3D since 2007 when I joined Renderosity.  Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI. I realize that AI still has a long go. For example, AI has mastered the human face but still makes horrible hands and extra body parts sometimes on the subject.  With 3D, the artist controls every detail of the image.  With AI, you are at the mercy of the computer.  You have to keep entering prompts over and over until you are satisfied.  Writing good prompts is the skill.  With that said, I love AI because now I can play with you guys on your level. 

I'll do my best to be polite.

The lighting and overall aesthetic are nice. It would make a solid pre-vis, style guide, or concept image.That said ...

"...mastered the human face..." has it tho? The dude in the grey suit [left side of the picture on the monitor] ... is wearing his face backwards! Backwards! Ooph!

Also peculiar the display doesn't fill the monitor. At first I was willing to pass it off as a "slideshow" type app, but you know what, there's an awful lot of docked icons at the bottom for that.

There are somewhere between, 200 and far-too-many-to-count-keys on that keyboard, thereisnospacebartho.

The left edge of the desktop deteriorates into ... well I'm not even sure, we'll call it a touch of surrealism. The right edge of the desktop is a bit wonky as well. Its a mix of solid and hollow that probably couldn't work in the real world.

The back of the left side of the desk where the drawers meet the wall isn't correct. At the bottom where you have the light and the floor board, that indicates a fairly sizable gap between desk and wall, at the top however, the tightness of the shadow indicates a very narrow gap.

You've got two handles on one drawer on the right side. The drawers on the left side have a clear protrusion from the front face on the left, but are flush at the right edge.

Reflections on the desktop seem alright, except the apple logo, and the black label on the one candle, that reflection clearly isn't correct.

The reflections in the picture on the wall shows a double pillar in the window, but there's only a single pillar. Its reading as "this is supposed to be a reflection, play along please" rather than an actual representation of the "space" its reflecting.

The whole desk in general is pretty odd, there's little to no signs of or way it could possibly have been assembled [short of superglue and will power?].

Reflections on the desktop seem alright, except the apple logo, and the black label on the one candle, that reflection isn't correct. The reflections in the picture on the wall shows a double pillar in the window, but there's only a single pillar. It generally reads as "this is supposed to be a reflection, play along please" rather than an actual representation of the "space" its reflecting.

That candle on the right side is doing all kinds of strange, we'll throw that in the surrealism category.

Some of those flowers are pretty suspect. Left bouquet, there are at least two that are pretty indistinct "swirls".

The chair is missing a leg. That should be a five leg base [based on the positions of the four in the image], and while you could make the argument that the fifth would be [mostly or entirely] occluded by the center post, cause, you'd be right it probably would be, you should still see the caster and its interaction [shadow/reflection] with the floor.

Those are the things that jump out to me at first glance. We'll ignore some of the general amorphous ambiguity of some of the "pictures" in the image and chalk that up to being them "abstract" or visual representations of "lorem ipsum".

"Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI." Honestly and simply put ... no you can't. I feel like that statement is an over reach at best, as you admit, "... AI still has a long [way to] go." At worse, its borderline demeaning and offensive [I'm sure you didn't intend it as such].

Replacing your arm with an air cannon, doesn't make you a major league pitcher. Personally, I see more merit in what you might consider "a lesser quality image" that someone who is struggling with/learning the process might produce than hitting a "make art button".

If you want to continue down the AI road, and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what makes you happy, I would suggest a bit more effort/focus on post work. At least some of the things I listed, would be pretty minor/easy things to clean up in post, would elevate the image quality significantly, and make it less obviously AI generated.

The biggest problem I see with AI art, is that it is nothing more than a cut and paste job of multiple snippets from other peoples art slammed together.

When you submit art to this site, you have to check a box stating that it is your work, and AI art really isn't submittable under those rules.

A computer cut up and morphed someone else's images, based on what someone else typed into a box. And the computer used someone else's work to make a drawing from what it was trained on.

The example of a DJ was used earlier, but there is a huge difference with that.

If a DJ remixes one of my songs and publishes it, anywhere, I either get royalties off of it or it is taken down. I am the creator, and they only used my material differently. The main difference, is that it is still mine, and I get paid accordingly. I will get credit for my work, and people will know who I am.

In AI art, the original creators get nothing back. And the "creator" of that AI art gets to claim they made it, when in fact they did not... A computer made it, from modifying someone else's works.... 

It is against the law to forge a Davinci painting in many countries, making a "copy" of it in part or in whole, is illegal. Davinci didn't even know what a copyright was, but yet he is protected years after his death..... If Davinci was alive today, no one out side of a few people would know him, or even know who he was. AI would have seen to that.

AI takes that one step further, and buries artist in a flood of their own work, without the original artist getting any credit for it at all.

No one will ever know who the people were, that made the art that trained the AI.... 

Those that approve of AI art, must therefore approve of erasing the people that did the original works to justify it....

All while forgetting that the AI will erase them as well, far faster than Davinci.....

AI art is not art, it is the current way of stealing someone else's works legally, then claiming you created what the computer was programmed to steal for you.

If it was truly AI, it would not have to have been trained to steal work, or to even make the images at all. Stealing is a human trait, programmed into the AI...

And sadly, many people see no problem with that at all....

AI is the lazy former frat boy whose rich daddy gets him a prestigious position in government or big biz. AI gets all the glory and awards while everyone else does all the work.

rokket posted at 9:29 PM Mon, 6 February 2023 - #2977157

I am starting to see a flood of it on DeviantArt. Almost all the images I am seeing (because I don't want to see yet another naked female, so I choose to only look at 3D or painitngs, et al) lately have been AI.

I don't see it as art. With what we do, especially me since I create almost everything the figures are wearing, there is a skill set. With what I used to do, drawing, painting, inking, there is a definite skill set.

But I have messed with some of the AI online sites. A couple of key phrases and a couple of mouse clicks, and you have an image.

Where is the skill in that? Where is the creativity? It's all in the software. There are some incredible images created out of it. Look on DA. There are some that look photo realistic. The uncanny valley has been crossed.

But there is no skill involved. While some might argue that it lets everyone create art, the imagination, the years of perfecting your skill set, or your workflow is not there. You can learn to manipulate the software in a matter of minutes.

If I am wrong, tell me.

But it's like the old musician's argument that a DJ is not a musician. AI manipulation is not art.

HO-boy.

I tried "Mid-journey"(my gods do not let that thing into your discord) and it was fun. I used prompts such as "water lilies in gold" or "Geisha and water lilies" and it was abit of fun.
Thought, ok, this is just something to play with. I didn't give it much thought. AI wasn't bad at the time(this was less than a year ago)

Now...
I open DA and that is almost all I see. It can be beautiful, I will give it that. Even if it hits the "Uncanny valley" aspect of the mind. But...
I can't say it is art. And the law doesn't either. If a person uses a prompt to create something out of one of these engines, unless they use it as a background, etc, is not copyright'able as it is not created by a human. There is a lawyer on Youtube that goes into detail on this.
That aside, I see it being very hard to keep up with it. As an artist, its going to make it difficult.

It harvests our work(and Adobe is helping it) and poof! Artists...are outworked.
Also, DA has been sued already for this by three artists. I cant remember if it is still in court or not. But DA helping AI has already been flagged an issue.

But as it has been said above, if it is trained to steal work...its not wholly AI.

Oh and fyi, there are companies advertising on LinkedIN to “harvest” data and images for AI.

Our time as artists...may be in the sunset years.

Warlock279 posted at 4:14 PM Thu, 18 May 2023 - #4465724

Crystal46 posted at 12:42 PM Thu, 18 May 2023 - #4465700

I know this comment is going to be misunderstood but I am going to say it anyway. This image is something I made after studying AI for about 2 weeks.

I always wanted to be a 3D artist but could never get the hang of 3D.  I have been loving and admiring all of you who can create amazing 3D since 2007 when I joined Renderosity.  Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI. I realize that AI still has a long go. For example, AI has mastered the human face but still makes horrible hands and extra body parts sometimes on the subject.  With 3D, the artist controls every detail of the image.  With AI, you are at the mercy of the computer.  You have to keep entering prompts over and over until you are satisfied.  Writing good prompts is the skill.  With that said, I love AI because now I can play with you guys on your level. 

I'll do my best to be polite.

The lighting and overall aesthetic are nice. It would make a solid pre-vis, style guide, or concept image.That said ...

"...mastered the human face..." has it tho? The dude in the grey suit [left side of the picture on the monitor] ... is wearing his face backwards! Backwards! Ooph!

Also peculiar the display doesn't fill the monitor. At first I was willing to pass it off as a "slideshow" type app, but you know what, there's an awful lot of docked icons at the bottom for that.

There are somewhere between, 200 and far-too-many-to-count-keys on that keyboard, thereisnospacebartho.

The left edge of the desktop deteriorates into ... well I'm not even sure, we'll call it a touch of surrealism. The right edge of the desktop is a bit wonky as well. Its a mix of solid and hollow that probably couldn't work in the real world.

The back of the left side of the desk where the drawers meet the wall isn't correct. At the bottom where you have the light and the floor board, that indicates a fairly sizable gap between desk and wall, at the top however, the tightness of the shadow indicates a very narrow gap.

You've got two handles on one drawer on the right side. The drawers on the left side have a clear protrusion from the front face on the left, but are flush at the right edge.

Reflections on the desktop seem alright, except the apple logo, and the black label on the one candle, that reflection clearly isn't correct.

The reflections in the picture on the wall shows a double pillar in the window, but there's only a single pillar. Its reading as "this is supposed to be a reflection, play along please" rather than an actual representation of the "space" its reflecting.

The whole desk in general is pretty odd, there's little to no signs of or way it could possibly have been assembled [short of superglue and will power?].

Reflections on the desktop seem alright, except the apple logo, and the black label on the one candle, that reflection isn't correct. The reflections in the picture on the wall shows a double pillar in the window, but there's only a single pillar. It generally reads as "this is supposed to be a reflection, play along please" rather than an actual representation of the "space" its reflecting.

That candle on the right side is doing all kinds of strange, we'll throw that in the surrealism category.

Some of those flowers are pretty suspect. Left bouquet, there are at least two that are pretty indistinct "swirls".

The chair is missing a leg. That should be a five leg base [based on the positions of the four in the image], and while you could make the argument that the fifth would be [mostly or entirely] occluded by the center post, cause, you'd be right it probably would be, you should still see the caster and its interaction [shadow/reflection] with the floor.

Those are the things that jump out to me at first glance. We'll ignore some of the general amorphous ambiguity of some of the "pictures" in the image and chalk that up to being them "abstract" or visual representations of "lorem ipsum".

"Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI." Honestly and simply put ... no you can't. I feel like that statement is an over reach at best, as you admit, "... AI still has a long [way to] go." At worse, its borderline demeaning and offensive [I'm sure you didn't intend it as such].

Replacing your arm with an air cannon, doesn't make you a major league pitcher. Personally, I see more merit in what you might consider "a lesser quality image" that someone who is struggling with/learning the process might produce than hitting a "make art button".

If you want to continue down the AI road, and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what makes you happy, I would suggest a bit more effort/focus on post work. At least some of the things I listed, would be pretty minor/easy things to clean up in post, would elevate the image quality significantly, and make it less obviously AI generated.

I am just going to sit in my chair and clap.

Thank you

Crystal46 posted at 12:42 PM Thu, 18 May 2023 - #4465700

I know this comment is going to be misunderstood but I am going to say it anyway. This image is something I made after studying AI for about 2 weeks.

I always wanted to be a 3D artist but could never get the hang of 3D.  I have been loving and admiring all of you who can create amazing 3D since 2007 when I joined Renderosity.  Fast forward to 2023, and I can create art that rivals any 3D artist with a few clicks of a mouse because of AI. I realize that AI still has a long go. For example, AI has mastered the human face but still makes horrible hands and extra body parts sometimes on the subject.  With 3D, the artist controls every detail of the image.  With AI, you are at the mercy of the computer.  You have to keep entering prompts over and over until you are satisfied.  Writing good prompts is the skill.  With that said, I love AI because now I can play with you guys on your level.  

Ok I took time to step back before replying to your post specifically.
I understand the desire to post work. Its what drove me to switch from traditional mediums to digital. I wanted so badly to create some really interesting things.

But here is the difference....
You are giving "prompts". -you-...arent doing any of the work.
You are not tweaking out the lights, then adjusting shadows.
You aren't working on getting the reflection and refractions correct.
You aren't learning the different camera settings, the DOF, the angles, focal length, etc.
You aren't working on how the textures work.

Our computers are not doing the work for us, they are doing things we -manually- adjust. We spend YEARS working on learning how to do something, working on how to accomplish a specific effect. We spend years, learning how to texture something, how to get the light right to catch just the edge of a figure, we work years on how to pose a figure so that it doesnt look wooden. We learn about how cloth drapes and hangs. We learn about how best to set up a scene to capture just the right amount of the scene and enough to capture the imagination.

Our computers...do not have a "create art button"....but that is what you are using. You are giving a prompt of(something like) "Studio office, sunny day, glass desk top, day time, reflective surface, city" and the AI ENGINE….is making the scene.

You....didnt.


Some of us here have been studying and working and learning for over 20 years….and you have given a few prompts to an AI engine that did the work.

I know it sounds harsh…as harsh as it's been for many of us for years getting accused of doing what you ARE doing.

None of us, have some magic button in our programs that just POOF makes a picture. Each of us that work in 3d, or digital painting(which most of us do in combination to our 3d work)  work bloody hard to get the results we do. To grow. To improve.  To learn things like anatomy, so we know how an arm is supposed to move or how it will bend when holding something.

(because is rarely is there any pose package that gets tiny, little, tweaks just right for every single instance a pose may be used. Something as simple as how the fingers flex when it comes into contact with a hard surface can change how a pose looks.)


You have no concept of what it is like to spend decades working on a skill, a craft...to see something just do it in seconds with just a few "prompts"....

No, what you are posting, is not the same. It's not YOUR work..it's the AI engine's work.
There is…a difference.

I also have tried Stable difussion, at least to give it a try. Poor results, some downright gruesome. Its all about the prompt.

But I don't consider AI graphics  an art form.

BTW, I loved the answers some of you gave to the AI "'artist"'... Well said!

Crystal46 posted at 12:42 PM Thu, 18 May 2023 - #4465700

  With that said, I love AI because now I can play with you guys on your level.  

---------------------------

Sorry Crystal, but nope, you're not playing with us on our level.

For that you would need to learn any of the 3d programs we are using. 
Learn (and suffer) like we did, getting frustrated, starting over and over again until you've reached a point, that you could say, it's ok to show it in a gallery.
And then keep on learning and I'm telling you, this part of learning will never end.
I'm working with Poser and Studio (and some more) since over 20 years and I still feel like a beginner. 
Playing with us on our level ...
for me it sounds almost like an insult.

 i don't like the quotes in the title around "art", because they're the same as they were when other breakthroughs had been made.

hand painting artists said that as photography came up, since a click on a button could immortalize an image they'd need hours/days/week to paint by hand. or anyone doing hand made art as computers came up, just 2D graphics/photo retouch. and then again when 3D came up. and inside the 3d community, you have the hardcore creators, and then the lesser users of premade assets... etc etc. so now it's AI, and all the previous artists are again jumping up and down, because they had to do their art the harder way than the newcomers.

well, as long as people can spread feces and splatter random paint on a canvas, or stick some weird materials together as an "installation" (with questionable results, not talking about occasional great works), then give it an awesome trendy name and call it "art", and worse, sell it for abominable amounts while people starve and animals die - i don't think we should start judging what's "art" at all, because then it becomes complicated and a lot of hypocrisy is shown.

same for 3d stuff now here on rendo more particularly - as long as people can and do render boring and often offensive clichee chick nudes with poor skills, or feel the need to upload every single render they've made (so since they do, why shouldn't others..hmm?), or take random photos of every stone, tree, sky bit, dog etc while walking to work and expect from everyone to call it "art" on the same level as people who have created beautiful inspiring hard-worked-on 3D works, i don't think we can and should judge people who create with AI. either we only accept high quality self-made work which basically means suffer, getting frustrated, starting over and over again until you've reached a point and learn to manipulate a brush and color or clay etc, and maybe but really maybe also extremely magnificent photography showing some grand skills and subjects, and maybe amazing 3d art that is innovative and truly beautiful/esthetical...... or we are inclusive of all kind of manifestations of art and skill levels and amount of work involved, no judging - which means people who create with AI are part of it. period.

as to where AI learning materials have been "stolen", that is another discussion. involving real technical knowledge of how AI works and has been learning, and ethical choices in art and life (every artist complaining about how their livelihood is threatened should also be vegan or even fructivore, otherwise they are actively supporting the killing of other lives! not just livelihoods. and same for their clothing etc, only ethical - but do they all?), and how every art form learner has basically been copying others (would beethoven and monet complain if they were stilll alive? how many musicians start by covering others or use pre-made sound elements? do you brain bleach every time you look at a render or any art form just in case your brain would unconsciously get inspired and copy parts of it in your work?). i do NOT agree about how nobody was asked before the AI techs started scraping images and texts all over the place, this was wrong, and should have been done differently from the start. on the other hand, everyone should realize that once something is made public, and especially when made accessible on the internet, it's prone to get used by others, copyright here or not, so you want it safe, leave it in a safe, shit happens. anyway, that ship has sailed, and the databanks have been made. should the new technology get boosted back into the stone age now?

so why not embrace this new form of creation? at least when no (big) money is been done by totally cloning someone's work. reminder: an art style is legally not copyright-able. only precise works. there is some/a huge lot work to do about the legal aspects, the use, etc. and ways to make AI access impossible if you don't want your stuff to be scraped should be implemented. but compromises should be made on all sides i think, somehow.

so, i will not have someone tell me that some images i really loved making in AI, sometimes quick but sometimes with effort, and that i consider beautiful and pleasant to look at for others, are basically always worth less than any other 3d render or photo or whatever independently of the effort made by the other person and the resulting creation. nope. never.
and as insults go, according to the mention above, i should feel just the same then, when i spent hours/days on a daz scene, trying to create something pleasant or interesting to look at, and someone else is shoving some quickly or poorly made discutable stuff and is considered just the same... because so, basically i can produce any crap i want, as long as it's not AI then? ok, duly noted. lol. interesting point of view, worth studying.

also, some people have opted for AI instead of 2D/3D or other forms of art because they have physical limitations, or technical limitations, and their own story. but i guess anti-AI fanatics don't give a s***, as long as their narrative doesn't allow for this much consideration.

AI is a threat in life, that's a reality - because PEOPLE use it for fakes etc. the people are the problem, not the medium. it just helps. ban Ai and they will find other ways to manipulate people, they've done it for ages with tv. besides, y'all most probably have AI in your phone, and/or smart objects and houses. who doesn't use google or other search engines? online clouds? online subscription apps? everything today is a threat in a way. the whole problem are dishonest people, autocrats, etc. they just have better methods with AI. i don't agree with a lot of things. but AI art for fun like here is by far not the worst threat.

anyway.

so, i am not subscribing to this thread. i did for another and wasted a lot of time. i just said my opinion, i'm not arguing. which means i'm not following nor reading any answers. because basically, those against Ai art won't budge an inch, and those who support AI share some/all of my thoughts already and i don't have to inform/try to win them.

bye, i won't be seeing you here cuz i'm not following, nor in paradise, cuz i'm an AI art supporter so i'm going to hell ^^.

Stable Diffusion is very good at depicting hell 👹

seems an awful lot of art depicting hell has been made and used in training

...also if they wanted a dead forum nobody posts to, they got it now

I know you said you're not going to read any responses, just drop an argument then run away which is kinda weak sauce, I could make some comment about how that might make it look like you know your argument holds limited merit or something, I'm not going to [or I just did?] but that's okay, I'm going to take the time to reply. You've made some silly points, and you've spent nearly half your post contradicting your own argument.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

 i don't like the quotes in the title around "art", because they're the same as they were when other breakthroughs had been made.

That's okay, you don't have to like the quotes, but they're appropriate at this point in time. As it stands now AI "art" is not recognized as such. It is not eligible for copyright [nor is a photo taken by a monkey but that's neither here nor there].

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

hand painting artists said that as photography came up, since a click on a button could immortalize an image they'd need hours/days/week to paint by hand. or anyone doing hand made art as computers came up, just 2D graphics/photo retouch. and then again when 3D came up. and inside the 3d community, you have the hardcore creators, and then the lesser users of premade assets... etc etc. so now it's AI, and all the previous artists are again jumping up and down, because they had to do their art the harder way than the newcomers.

Sure, there's always going to be push back from the old guard against new technologies, but there's a key difference between all those arts that came before and AI "art" now, and that's that they all require a skill set developed by human beings and imparted to the work. Sure, in each case, perhaps the amount of work required changes, but each new medium still requires skill developed by humans.

We'll circle back to this, because you've referenced skill multiple times throughout your post.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

well, as long as people can spread feces and splatter random paint on a canvas, or stick some weird materials together as an "installation" (with questionable results, not talking about occasional great works), then give it an awesome trendy name and call it "art", and worse, sell it for abominable amounts while people starve and animals die - i don't think we should start judging what's "art" at all, because then it becomes complicated and a lot of hypocrisy is shown.

It is probably relatively pointless to rehash "what is art" at this juncture that horse have been tenderized long enough. I'm not entirely sure where you think the hypocrisy comes into it, but there is indeed some rather "meh" art out there, "art for art's sake" and a lot of stuff that is only art in the "eye of the beholder" so to speak. I'm not sure any of that bolsters your argument tho.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

 same for 3d stuff now here on rendo more particularly - as long as people can and do render boring and often offensive clichee chick nudes with poor skills, or feel the need to upload every single render they've made (so since they do, why shouldn't others..hmm?), or take random photos of every stone, tree, sky bit, dog etc while walking to work and expect from everyone to call it "art" on the same level as people who have created beautiful inspiring hard-worked-on 3D works, i don't think we can and should judge people who create with AI.

We're back to "skill". You say we shouldn't be judging people who use AI, but you've just judged the the ever-loving-crap out of I can't even guess what percent of the users of this site.

Nobody is calling the random picture of a stone someone took on their walk to work and posted on 'Rosty the next "Lunch atop a Skyscraper". They're not calling it that for a myriad of reasons, not least of which being the lack of skill shown taking the photo, lack of composition, poor lighting, lack of focus, mundane/trite subject matter etc, etc.

I like to think most of the users have that self awareness tho, and are enable to self critique enough to realize they're not creating a masterpiece with every image. That they can look at their photo, and photos from other users in the gallery and see that their photo might be better than some, and worse than others.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

either we only accept high quality self-made work which basically means suffer, getting frustrated, starting over and over again until you've reached a point and learn to manipulate a brush and color or clay etc, and maybe but really maybe also extremely magnificent photography showing some grand skills and subjects, and maybe amazing 3d art that is innovative and truly beautiful/esthetical...

If they take enough pictures of rocks on their way to work tho, and post them, accept and implement feedback, continue to iterate, that's the point innit? Develop skill over time, and then maybe they'll take that picture someday that IS something.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

... or we are inclusive of all kind of manifestations of art and skill levels and amount of work involved, no judging - which means people who create with AI are part of it. period.

You've mentioned skill several times and seem to be dividing the images posted on this site by the users skill, where's the skill in AI art? Learning what prompts give certain results? Can you ever really get "better" at AI "art"? If an experienced AI "artist" sits down at the computer next to someone that's never used AI to generate an image before, and they both type the same words into the same engine is there not an equal chance of it spitting out the same image? I know the chance of it generating the SAME image is borderline non-existent but that's not really the point.

Is the more experienced user going to generate the better image [all else being equal]? Is the more experienced user going to make a better choice in lighting or composition or selective focus? No, they're not, they can't. AI "art" as it stands now doesn't allow the individual that generates the image to impart those learned skills that are [generally considered] fundamental aspects of what art is onto the image creation process.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

as to where AI learning materials have been "stolen", that is another discussion. involving real technical knowledge of how AI works and has been learning, and ethical choices in art and life (every artist complaining about how their livelihood is threatened should also be vegan or even fructivore, otherwise they are actively supporting the killing of other lives! not just livelihoods. and same for their clothing etc, only ethical - but do they all?)

Good grief, that's a silly extreme. If I had to make one guarantee, it would be that you won't see the sun set tomorrow without having benefited from something else dying. There is no life without death. You seem to be dug in at animals, but you're okay with the slaughter of living plants? You're okay with plants? What about insects? Insects probably died in the production of those plants/fuits and vegetables. Forget your "ethical" clothing, something died for it, its only "ethical" so far as you can bury your head in the sand.

You might even have stepped on a dozen bugs on your walk to work, while you were distracted by someone taking pictures of stones. That's life. Nothing lives without something else dying. Let's call the "lives vs livelihood" argument the poppycock it is. If you want to wax philosophical about the ethics of existing, have at it, but its not relevant in the least here.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

and how every art form learner has basically been copying others (would beethoven and monet complain if they were stilll alive?

If someone was skirting the confines of the law, you bet they would! You know what, some of the "greats" did in their time.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

how many musicians start by covering others or use pre-made sound elements? do you brain bleach every time you look at a render or any art form just in case your brain would unconsciously get inspired and copy parts of it in your work?).

Interestingly enough there's a whole system in place where performing covers of a piece of music actually gives money to the original recording artist in the form of royalties? [Is it a fair amount, probably not, music hasn't been a terribly fair industry for a long long time.] And pre-made sound elements [or samples], those are usually a bought-and-paid for elements right? Kinda like the stuff in the marketplace here. So again, original creator, benefits, blah-blah blah. When those elements aren't legally sourced [or exceed the length legal sample length], or someone benefits from covers without credit/royalties ... then the [copyright] law gets involved.

Brain bleach? I mean, maybe after reading something really dumb on the internet, but otherwise, no.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

i do NOT agree about how nobody was asked before the AI techs started scraping images and texts all over the place, this was wrong, and should have been done differently from the start.

This, I think, is the core of what a lot of the problem is no? A lot [most? all?] of the AI engines have been trained in a less than ethical manner. I don't think you'd see nearly as much of a hard-line push back were that not the case. People would still be calling it out for what it is, and they'd be rightfully [in my opinion] disappointed when an AI image is posted next to theirs without being identified as such, but the fact the AI engines scraped huge amounts of work without consent, is a very serious issue.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

 on the other hand, everyone should realize that once something is made public, and especially when made accessible on the internet, it's prone to get used by others, copyright here or not, so you want it safe, leave it in a safe, shit happens. anyway, that ship has sailed, and the databanks have been made. should the new technology get boosted back into the stone age now?

Copyright or not? Protection when you make something public is the whole point of copyright. It gives you legal recourse when someone uses your work without permission. Just because something is made public shouldn't mean its free-use or tough-cookies to the creator.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

anyway, that ship has sailed, and the databanks have been made. should the new technology get boosted back into the stone age now?

I don't see any reason AI engines trained in a less than ethical manner shouldn't be wiped. I kinda think that could be a starting point to fair compromise. They're not a living thing after all, and they can be trained again, the right way in an ethical manner. Or can they?

I imagine it would be a LOT harder to re-train them "in the light of day". Be a mighty tall order to get artists to allow it. Unfortunately you're right, those worms may not be going back in that can.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

so why not embrace this new form of creation?

You'll note in one of my previous posts, if you took the time to read anything before your diatribe-and-dash, I said there is probably some merit in AI generated images and that it will probably find a use for concept/idea generation before being refined by an actual artist for production. I have a hard time seeing a scenario where something considered "final" could be completely AI generated when there's so little control over the actual output.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

 at least when no (big) money is been done by totally cloning someone's work. reminder: an art style is legally not copyright-able. only precise works.

Curious. Why does [big] money have any impact on what's right or wrong? Before you were concerned with animals lives to sustain other lives, but now your concern is right and wrong when money [or should I say livelihood] is involved? Ethics, only when money is involved? Seems counter intuitive to what is "ethical".

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

 there is some/a huge lot work to do about the legal aspects, the use, etc. and ways to make AI access impossible if you don't want your stuff to be scraped should be implemented. but compromises should be made on all sides i think, somehow.

What compromise should artists be making? Should they be forced [I mean ... "compromise"] to allow a limited forfeiture of copyright to train AI? That doesn't seem a very fair compromise

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

so, i will not have someone tell me that some images i really loved making in AI, sometimes quick but sometimes with effort, and that i consider beautiful and pleasant to look at for others, are basically always worth less than any other 3d render or photo or whatever independently of the effort made by the other person and the resulting creation. nope. never.

I don't think anyone is discounting the joy generating the image might have brought you, or your satisfaction with the end result, I'm certainly not, I've said as much prior. I think we are just asking that you have a little self-awareness, and recognize the difference between generating an image with AI, and an image that was created through the development of skills [whatever stage those skills may be at] through hard work over time.

You wanted compromise, asking that you don't roll up in here drop an AI generated image and proclaim, "now I'm as good as the best artist!", seems like a fair place to start.
You can ignore anyone that tells you it is worth less than an original work, when someone else uses it for something, don't complain, after all you did make it public, and you did so knowing you don't have copyright protection.

I wonder how fast knickers would twist if artists were to start creating work based off imagery generated by users of AI. That work might be eligible for copyright? Its created based on an image that isn't copyrighted, so I'm not sure you could call it derivative, and it would be created with direct input and control by a humans . . . that could be an interesting wrinkle.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

and as insults go, according to the mention above, i should feel just the same then, when i spent hours/days on a daz scene, trying to create something pleasant or interesting to look at, and someone else is shoving some quickly or poorly made discutable stuff and is considered just the same... because so, basically i can produce any crap i want, as long as it's not AI then? ok, duly noted. lol. interesting point of view, worth studying.

And we are back at skill, and judging others . You clearly wouldn't consider "a poorly made discutable" the same as something you "spent hours/days on" given the derision in your post, why do you think others would consider it the "same"? Do you think the creator of said "discutable" considers it the "same"? Do you think someone that looks [insert your choice of "best"] image on the site, and [insert your choice of "worst"] image on the site side by side thinks to themselves, "yep, same!"? I have a fairly bleak outlook these days, and even I still [usually] give [most] people that much credit at least.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

also, some people have opted for AI instead of 2D/3D or other forms of art because they have physical limitations, or technical limitations, and their own story. but i guess anti-AI fanatics don't give a s***, as long as their narrative doesn't allow for this much consideration.

Anti-AI fanatics? Narrative? Persecution complex?

I can't say i've seen anyone belittle someone for using AI because of a disabiltiy. I'm sure its happened in some back-water recesses of the web, people suck and this is the internet, that's how it rolls unfortunately, but in any sensible debate on the topic? No.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

AI is a threat in life, that's a reality - because PEOPLE use it for fakes etc. the people are the problem, not the medium. it just helps. ban Ai and they will find other ways to manipulate people, they've done it for ages with tv. besides, y'all most probably have AI in your phone, and/or smart objects and houses. who doesn't use google or other search engines? online clouds? online subscription apps? everything today is a threat in a way. the whole problem are dishonest people, autocrats, etc. they just have better methods with AI. i don't agree with a lot of things. but AI art for fun like here is by far not the worst threat.

I mean, sure, people are the worst, I'm not going to disagree with your there. I'm just not sure I see how people being awful has any relevance on the merits of AI generated imagery. You're right tho, there are bigger problems in the world than someone generating AI "art". Wonder if it would be as much fun on "ethically-trained" AI engines tho.

Seems a lot of AI engines limit the types of imagery you can generate, isn't foundational censorship like that somewhat counter intuitive to the freedom of expression that is art? ... Anyway!

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

anyway.

so, i am not subscribing to this thread. i did for another and wasted a lot of time. i just said my opinion, i'm not arguing. which means i'm not following nor reading any answers. because basically, those against Ai art won't budge an inch, and those who support AI share some/all of my thoughts already and i don't have to inform/try to win them.

Really, what was the point of all this? If you were only interested in an echo chamber surely you could have found it elsewhere? If you were only upset by the use of "art" surely you could have moved on, or at least spent less time on a more concise post.

Half your post argues that AI "art" is good because it eliminates the element of skill making everyone equal, while simultaneously deriding people who post images that aren't equal to you.

maneki_neko posted at 11:16 PM Sat, 9 September 2023 - #4474387

bye, i won't be seeing you here cuz i'm not following, nor in paradise, cuz i'm an AI art supporter so i'm going to hell ^^.

Viva la Skynet ... I guess?

Gosh, they don't make replying in-line easy around here, hopefully this isn't scrambled.

If by AI "art" you mean the AI generated images that people are (sorry, were) posting to Renderosity - some of it's great and some of it's crap. Poser renders on the other hand - some of them are great and some of them are crap. 

If by AI "art" you mean the text to image generation software that actually enables people to create pictures by simply typing in a text prompt, then you really, really ain't seen nothing yet.

If you're one of the artists who scoffs "but AI can't even do hands properly!" then you're absolutely right. For now. But don't forget that only a few years ago text to image generators didn't even exist. For you I'd recommend this Vox video on YouTube - Why AI art struggles with hands - YouTube . 

If you're one of the artists who believes that text to image generator simply steals artists work then I'd recommend this 90 minute Stanford University video on YouTube - Diffusion and Score-Based Generative Models - YouTube (no, I haven't watched it all myself yet - it's way over my head!)

If you prefer shorter videos try the Two Minute Papers - YouTube channel - short videos, usually around five minutes long, highlighting how rapidly "AI" is developing.

regardless of how the training works, one only needs to look at sample sizes to realize nobody's work was stolen. 

it scraped 512x512 thumbnails of captioned search results on the web to learn how text related to the pixels and did so agnostically.

It didn't think, this image was painted by Joe Blow or this a 3D render by Wendyluvscatz but rather here are these pixels and it has been described as being a render of a black cat by wendyluvscatz and compares it to say another set of pixels described as a photo of my black cat Sooty by Sassy Witch on Facebook, countless other images with Black Cat in description, post, caption etc and learns what is generally accepted as being a Black Cat.

The only reason one would get similar images to real artists is because they are over represented in search engines with a vast number of results for the same search terms using the exact title etc and you can get those exact same images using Google search, you are literally asking it to render an image by that artist, not a picture of this thing or that.

The amount of training it did on anyone's image is so minuscule unless they are massively famous you would probably run out of 0.000n decimal places trying to fit the percentage on a readable chart.

It would use a term like insert Famous Artist name the same way it would any adjective in any context such as "I really like said artist so drew a scribble that sucked because I cannot draw like said artist etc and this caption on their social media feed gets linked with their stick figure of a Witcher character etc, most named artists do not actually result in images that look like stuff by said artist.

Everything fits into a 4GB checkpoint file downloadable on Hugging Face.

That's some serious compression for all the artworks on the internet

so no your 3D render or digital drawing has not been stolen, it was just looked at, compared to other random images with the same keywords in it's description by you or others and if enough images had some key elements the same, the  machine learning algorithm determined these pixels are generally considered to be a cat, a painting, a photograph etc. or these things described as photographs all contain the words Elon Musk so this arrangement of facial features ( a concept itself that was trained)  is what is expected if Elon Musk is typed. 

the sheer amount of images on the internet and used in the LIAON5b database suggests most of it would be in fact news headline thumbnails, adverts, adult content, products for sale, game screenshots etc, actual art itself would be a small percentage, AI is very good at human faces, goods and clothing, Foods come out well  as does architecture, scenery.

AI is like homeopathic medicine, a vial of something was opened in the same room as the water in the sold product.

Have you seen this? https://www.renderosity.com/article/27412/renderosity-updated-policy-for-ai-images-in-galleries

Apparently the Powers That Be here are trying to come up with something a bit more reasonable than the 100% ban announced (not quite?) a week ago. 

(edited because I accidentally omitted a word. Now that sentence makes sense.)

This is more of a clarification of how AI can be allowed into the gallery.  It must be part of a workflow through another creative medium(s) instead of a text prompt-generated image.  It makes sense if you use AI to create a background or texturize a figure or prop and incorporate those into a final image rendered in Poser, DAZStudio, Blender, etc. that it is perfectly legitimate to post them in the gallery. 

So does that mean I can also take my 3d renders and such into an AI app and generate new images based on them and the results would be okay to post in the gallery? Got quite a few photographs in need of such improvement and/or restoration. Not to mention some old Poser scenes that could benefit from an AI makeover.

That would be correct.  I have seen AI images generated from simple Poser poses and tweaked through other 3rd party graphics software.  The same process with AI images reworked in Adobe Photoshop, GIMP, Krita, etc.  As long as the images are not solely AI-generated.

And in your case, the images are your own creations, no copyright violations.

Good to know. But since there is no longer an AI gallery -- and even though Poser or Daz Studio or an actual camera was involved, I wouldn't feel right posting them in those galleries because they wouldn't be pure 3d or photography after such major surgery -- I guess Mixed Media, Other Apps, or whatever it's called is appropriate. Unless Fan Art, which is a league unto itself. 

Is it art to render a default-pose Vicky with super-sized tits, naked of course because dressing them seems sooo much work, no decent background, no nothing?  Look at the gallery, it's flooded with shite like that!  It is a lot more work to get a decent AI picture than to render those bimbos.  But hey, it's Poser so it MUST be art!!

hmatienzo posted at 6:47 PM Tue, 19 September 2023 - #4474872

Is it art to render a default-pose Vicky with super-sized tits, naked of course because dressing them seems sooo much work, no decent background, no nothing?  Look at the gallery, it's flooded with shite like that!  It is a lot more work to get a decent AI picture than to render those bimbos.  But hey, it's Poser so it MUST be art!!

+ 999'999'999 and then some