Adventine's Adventures in AI Art

[Adventine]

This thread is about my experiments making art (and money) with AI art generators.

A few months ago, I happened across a news article about AI-generated art. For anyone who hasn't been following news in this space, this article is a good intro.

After falling down the news rabbit hole, I decided to try these tools for myself. I started playing around with Midjourney and I was immediately hooked. It was amazing and not a little unsettling to type a few lines of text into my computer and, a few seconds later, receive beautifully composed images.

I tried DALL-E 2 but found that it didn't create images that were as "artistic" as Midjourney's output. I decided against trying Stable Diffusion for now, because the tool requires me to install files on my local computer. I'm not fully comfortable doing that yet, given the technology is so new and I don't know what malicious files could be lurking in those open source downloads.

A few weeks flew by, with me creating stuff on Midjourney just for the sheer fun of it. It seemed that whatever I could think of, the AI could generate. As I got better at creating text the AI could understand (prompts), the better the output was.

Then I started to think about how to monetize this technology. These tools will do for art what the car did for transportation.

Just off the top of my head, here are the ways you can monetize AI art generators:

• Advertising
• Selling the images (ex. uploading to stock photo websites or selling merchandise like T-shirts, stickers, posters, art prints, etc.)
• Creating your own concept art, storyboards and graphic novels
• Video and text tutorials on how to use these brand new tools
• Selling the prompts (the text) that reliably create consistent images

In the past month, I've opened two online stores as an experiment:

My Redbubble store
Redbubble allows creators to upload designs, and customers can then order physical merchandise like stickers, T-shirts and notebooks with the designs printed on them. I don't need to physically create or stock any kind of inventory. The item (say, a T-shirt) is only printed and shipped once the customer purchases it. It was fun to see my AI-generated design "in the flesh," printed on actual physical items. I haven't really developed this storefront yet, because I found a much more interesting project...

My PromptBase store
I find PromptBase much more interesting than Redbubble because it's a more unusual way to make money. It's a marketplace for selling prompts (the text that you feed to the AI to make it generate images).

The business model is similar to how some people buy cookbooks instead of learning how to cook by trial and error or looking up free recipes on the internet. Some people just want their images to look a certain way right now, without investing the time and effort to experiment and DIY.

Thought of another way, selling prompts is like selling an extremely simplified Adobe Photoshop tutorial to someone who just wants an easy to follow guide and who doesn't have the time or patience to teach themselves.

Moreover, AI art generators like Midjourney and DALL-E 2 only offer a limited number of image generations before you have to start paying. People who don't know how to craft the right prompts can (and do) waste a lot of their free generations unsuccessfully trying to create a certain style or look. Purchasing a prompt that is known to reliably generate an image could, for the right consumer and the right use case, save a lot of money.

These AI tools are rapidly evolving and the monetization strategies that work today may not work at all next year. I'm already reading about AI tools for text-to-video and spoken word-to-image / -video. I fully expect that in the next few months, these tools will reach millions more people and the market will expand exponentially. It's an exciting new field and I'm looking forward to creating (and selling) things in this space.

[Adventine]

And I just got my first serious inquiry from someone who wants one-on-one prompt tutoring. Basically they want personalized help with troubleshooting their own prompts. They're willing to pay for my time and expertise.


I've also started earning a bit of money with my premade prompts on my PromptBase store.


I feel vindicated in my prediction that some people are willing to pay real money for the convenience and ease of having ready-made prompts and individualized tutorials.

[tygertygertyger]

This is really neat. I have a friend who invited me to play around with Midjourney - she's been VERY into it for a while. We're talking about whether / where there might be potential for copyright issues, which interests me a lot!

Happy to follow along here.

[Expatriate]

Thanks for sharing! Really cool. I’m actually equally fascinated by the fact that someone set up a transaction platform for prompts…

[JupiterGreen]

Where does Midjourney get their images from? The internet?

[Adventine]

@tygertygertyger I started out that way too - just tinkering with the tool for fun. Lots of people have questions on AI art potentially infringing copyright. To avoid any future headaches, I purposely stay away from anything copyrighted (like Disney) or imitating any living artist's style.

@Expatriate I know, right? It sounded funny to me, but then I realized that some people ARE willing to pay for prompts because they don't want to bother learning the details. Just like how someone would pay a professional to design their wedding invites instead of DIY-ing it on Canva. You can get amazing results with random text, but if you're looking for a specific style, you have to get a bit more technical. Some people don't have the time or patience.

@JupiterGreen Midjourney hasn't been forthcoming about the datasets it's using (source 1 and source 2).


I'm in a few online groups for digital artists and the range of reactions to this new technology is really interesting. People run the spectrum, from who are madly excited about these tools to those who've pretty much thrown up their hands in despair at the "death of art."

None of us were around to see the shift from handpainted portraits to photography or from live theater to film, but I think AI art is provoking similar reactions in people.

[JupiterGreen]

Well that's never good when the company is not transparent. I looked into Midjourney and noticed while they are most likely stealing the art of others online, they own the copyright of all the images made on their platform (even paid users, you get to keep yours but they own a copy). I'm guessing this is how they plan to shirk copyright lawsuits. Eventually they will have enough images made by users that are 3rd, 4th, 5th, generation of the original that they'll get to keep them. It will continue to be in legal gray area regarding copyright for some time.

It's certainly won't be the death of art, it's debatable whether it is art since the machine is simply throwing together existing art and shaking it around, then spitting out new image. If it is art, it's he Las Vegas of art. I don't have enough information to come down firmly on anything else about it. I can see how it could be useful, but I can also see how exploitative it is to the original artists. Artists are already not compensated enough for their time and expertise (in the US).

[Adventine]

It's a new technology. I agree that the people using it to blatantly rip off existing living artists are misusing the tech. But there are many people who are using it to make new things or expand on ideas that used to take too much time to do manually, or were simply beyond their technical or artistic skills.

I do think that AI art is art. It's just incredibly easy, fast and convenient, which really bothers some people. It has dramatically lowered the barriers to creating images (and soon video). Again, though, to become good at it, the user has to invest some effort in learning how to use the tool.

I also predict that job openings will soon be available for AI artists/technicians/engineers who are able to consistently generate images/videos according to client needs. Just like how some jobs require skillsets in certain programs.

Edited to add: here's a New York Times article profiling artists/designers who are using AI tools to supercharge their workflows: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/technology/ai-generated-art-jobs-dall-e-2.html

[JupiterGreen]

It's a new technology. I agree that the people using it to blatantly rip off existing living artists are misusing the tech. But there are many people who are using it to make new things or expand on ideas that used to take too much time to do manually, or were simply beyond their technical or artistic skills.

I do think that AI art is art. It's just incredibly easy, fast and convenient, which really bothers some people. It has dramatically lowered the barriers to creating images (and soon video). Again, though, to become good at it, the user has to invest some effort in learning how to use the tool.

I also predict that job openings will soon be available for AI artists/technicians/engineers who are able to consistently generate images/videos according to client needs. Just like how some jobs require skillsets in certain programs.

Edited to add: here's a New York Times article profiling artists/designers who are using AI tools to supercharge their workflows: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/technology/ai-generated-art-jobs-dall-e-2.html

The issue is not ease. We have had many technological advances in art and design. The main issue is the original images come from somewhere and that somewhere is an actual human (even if you don't purposefully add them to your prompts). The original image could have been commercially created (not typically considered art with a capital a) or the creator could have had more autonomy in image creation even if commercial, e.g. Hayao Miyazaki (that art can be categorize in a number of ways) or it could be solidly in the realm of fine art e.g. Vermeer. AI doesn't really impact artists with a capital a except for the style theft (another topic). But it does impact photographers, concept artists, illustrators, graphic designers etc. with images theft. And those who are established are getting style-thefted (made that term up). Ultimately (as it stands) big business are going to benefit the most from undercutting those artists/designers. Digital artists who are starting out will be usurped by (lower quality) image soup (at first, until the general population hopefully gets more savvy). So yeah those young designers are going to have to work with the AI or change careers. That would be a shame because culturally we should aspire to higher quality design. It cheapens the quality of design unless people who are trained in design (skills that can be learned) are at the helm of the AI and I do think that is what will eventually happen (the same thing happened with design programs). You can have all the tools in the world, they can make some things easier, but bad design is bad design. I don't have an issue with the technology, but I do have an issue with how they source images. They should have to create their own unique images for their database. The court cases in progress are exploring this issue and we shall see where it goes. As mentioned, I don't think it will impact fine artists significantly because there will always be a market for the highly crafted. This is an issue mainly impacting photographers and digital artists. But it is also an issue of copyright, and ultimately culture. For clarity of language, thinking something is art or liking something does not make it art.

For your sake, I'm glad you have a profitable side gig. Congratulations on all your hard work. In your efforts you're probably teaching yourself design (assuming you have no training). Thank you for starting this thread, it's a fascinating topic. It will be interesting to follow the topic of AI image making to see where the court cases go. Ultimately, I hope to adopt your enthusiasm about it. Right now I am a little cynical about the present state since it is capitalistically driven an appears to be exploitative to human beings.

Thank you for sharing the article, I will take a look at it.

[Adventine]

@JupiterGreen I think we're just going to have to disagree on our definitions of art. But I do appreciate your thoughts and I will also be following developments about the datasets used to train these AI tools and related copyright issues. 

[JupiterGreen]

@JupiterGreen I think we're just going to have to disagree on our definitions of art. But I do appreciate your thoughts and I will also be following developments about the datasets used to train these AI tools and related copyright issues.

I think you might misunderstand. I'm not trying to be argumentative, there is nothing for us to disagree about. There are real distinctions where specificity of language matters (this matters in every field of study). You might be using art as an umbrella term, e.g. anything made in a visual form. But you might also be grossly generalizing the term (IDK) and so I wanted to point out the distinction (without going too far into the depth of the topic). This is a vast subject there are books, courses, and philosophers who have made their careers on the topic. It is good to recognize there are distinctions (not a hierarchical thing, rather a way to categorize for clarity). There is also room for debate and schools of thought. And definitions shift, they are shifting all the time. This is not my opinion. I did not make any of this up, these are the facts of the discipline. I clarified the term because I was talking about the field of study and trying to describe the impact on people who work in the field. I also commented that AI images that use other people's images may or may not be art. The topic is in its infancy, so we need more time and information. I hope this makes sense.

So please don't let my (overly academic) comment offend you, they have nothing to do with you personally. I may have assumed you were more interested in the nuances of the topic than you are! Anyway, we definitely agree that the topic of AI image making is fascinating.

[Adventine]

@JupiterGreen
Oh, I'm not offended. It's good to have different viewpoints and probably thousands of other people are also having some form of this conversation about AI art right now.


If you want to see, in real time, what kind of impact the technology is having on the humans working in creative fields, you might want to try some of these tools yourself and join a few online artist communities. It might change your perspective.

[JupiterGreen]

@JupiterGreen
Oh, I'm not offended. It's good to have different viewpoints and probably thousands of other people are also having some form of this conversation about AI art right now.


If you want to see, in real time, what kind of impact the technology is having on the humans working in creative fields, you might want to try some of these tools yourself and join a few online artist communities. It might change your perspective.

Yes I have used some of the tools.

You are speaking apple and I am speaking blueberry pie. And even though I feel this is falling on deaf ears, I'll try to explain it one other way since this is a forum where we teach and learn and this happens to be my area expertise.

Somewhat comparable example: just because it's writing doesn't mean its literature

AI image making is new brand technology-there are no experts yet. Art on the other hand, is a discipline with a history as long as humans have been on the planet. Within the history of the field of Art there is specialize language (just like there are in other disciplines). This is not a perspective, opinion, or judgement, but a language specific to the discipline. If you would like to make a case for AI as art, I'd be interested to hear your response. It sounds like you want to call it art, why? If you think people who write AI prompts are working in the field of art, then the rationale follows the standards of all rationales (the language comes from the existing discipline you wish to place it). Maybe AI will eventually fall in the discipline of art, maybe it will be its own discipline, maybe it will fall in the realm of computer science. We just don't know yet. It muddies the waters and leads to misunderstanding when we throw terms around willy nilly.  Imagine someone learning how to use a hammer and calling themselves a carpenter. I mean a person can say that, but it still doesn't make them a carpenter. 

[Adventine]

@JupiterGreen I'm a bit puzzled by you framing this discussion in terms of "respect" / "respecting the discipline" of art. I started this thread because I found an new tool for creating beautiful images, and it's been a great form of self-expression and an interesting way to earn a bit of money.


To me, art is self-expression. Anyone of any skill level can create art using whatever tools they want. Is it always going to be art that is appreciated or valued by other people? No, of course not. What pleases the creator may not please the viewer. But even the least skilled bit of work has value if the creator finds an outlet for self-expression in it. And I say this as someone who has actually created art using traditional physical tools, both for audiences and for my own private enjoyment.


You are welcome to your own opinions about art but I do find your comments starting to become condescending. It's weird for someone to come into a thread I made for fun, and turn it into a discussion about how I should "respect the discpline enough to learn more about the topic."