Deviantart, it used to be called an illustration submission site. However, it is becoming more than just an illustration submission site these days. That’s “in a bad way”. How can this be said?

There are a number of simple reasons, one of which is the flood of images that appear to be copyright-illegal. The images there are clearly unoriginal, and are often simply purchased or screenshot from somewhere else.

The same can be said of AI image generation software, such as Stable Diffusion, which appeared at the end of last year. In short, Deviantart has changed. However, as far as I am concerned, as long as Novel AI is available, I will continue to use Deviantart in preference to Pixiv. The same reason why I don’t prioritise Pixiv is also the same reason why I don’t prioritise Pixiv.

Pixiv has far better quality artists than Deviantart, that much is clear. However, there is also a disappointment, and that is Pixiv’s stance on AI and its conservative stance on emerging technologies such as NFT. Deviantart is clearly superior, and it is easy to conclude that Deviantart is the place to try out new technologies, and Pixiv is the place to go if you want to be craftsmanlike and work hard.

The impression I got was that there is little awareness of AI: Deviantart is clearly aware of AI technology, but there is no sense that they are trying to do anything about it. If it can be used for business, then use it on its own, but only if it can go beyond that, is the stance I sensed. This is not based on his attitude towards AI, but rather on some overall estimation based on the current trends in crypto, reactions to NFT and metaverse, and so on.

Deviantart believes that it will be a contribution site connecting AI and analogue, and while similar restrictions are not as strong on Pixiv, the reaction of painters to AI is the worst, with short-circuiting and denial without even using the term AI painter being in vogue. Certainly technology is not ideologically driven, as it is not so intertwined with political or religious reasons, or if it is, it is only seen as a solution.

However, it would be to some extent different when it comes to AI. What that means is that when Elon Musk says we should go to space, we should go to Mars, it is similar to the conflicting opinion that no, we should do something about the Earth. It is what is called a techie controversy. That’s exactly what is happening in the world of AI image generation, and I personally have a gut feeling about it.

The identity of the unending question is simply: why can’t it be two-dimensional, and why are only images subject to exclusion? For example, if AI character generation or AI three-dimensional sampling models were to emerge, they would not be as problematic as image generation. This is because text has a tremendous amount of human-generated resources, whereas 3D models have a tremendous amount less; as for 3D, we can give up on the idea that if AI produces it, it will almost be AI, and as for text, there is so much of it that it does not matter much if AI struggles with it, and we are so high on it that It is so high-minded that it is not worth the AI’s effort.

And what comes out on top of that prospect is images, and the art of illustration has clearly grown since the Middle Ages, thanks to the efforts of craftspeople in both the East and West. But no matter how good contemporary art is, AI will instantly surpass its quality and mass produce it. AI image generation has become the dividing line between hating this and not hating it.

Given these issues, Deviantart could be a very useful site in the future, although we don’t know how much of an attitude it has now. This is largely due to the aspect that it does not criticise AI image generation outright. However, it is also undeniable that in the future, or even now, such a thing is a lie and that AI image generation is under tremendous condemnation.

AI writers and others will not be able to do anything about this issue in the future.

Deviantart, it used to be called an illustration submission site. However, it is becoming more than just an illustration submission site these days. That’s “in a bad way”. How can this be said?

There are a number of simple reasons, one of which is the flood of images that appear to be copyright-illegal. The images there are clearly unoriginal, and are often simply purchased or screenshot from somewhere else.

The same can be said of AI image generation software, such as Stable Diffusion, which appeared at the end of last year. In short, Deviantart has changed. However, as far as I am concerned, as long as Novel AI is available, I will continue to use Deviantart in preference to Pixiv. The same reason why I don’t prioritise Pixiv is also the same reason why I don’t prioritise Pixiv.

Pixiv has far better quality artists than Deviantart, that much is clear. However, there is also a disappointment, and that is Pixiv’s stance on AI and its conservative stance on emerging technologies such as NFT. Deviantart is clearly superior, and it is easy to conclude that Deviantart is the place to try out new technologies, and Pixiv is the place to go if you want to be craftsmanlike and work hard.

The impression I got was that there is little awareness of AI: Deviantart is clearly aware of AI technology, but there is no sense that they are trying to do anything about it. If it can be used for business, then use it on its own, but only if it can go beyond that, is the stance I sensed. This is not based on his attitude towards AI, but rather on some overall estimation based on the current trends in crypto, reactions to NFT and metaverse, and so on.

Deviantart believes that it will be a contribution site connecting AI and analogue, and while similar restrictions are not as strong on Pixiv, the reaction of painters to AI is the worst, with short-circuiting and denial without even using the term AI painter being in vogue. Certainly technology is not ideologically driven, as it is not so intertwined with political or religious reasons, or if it is, it is only seen as a solution.

However, it would be to some extent different when it comes to AI. What that means is that when Elon Musk says we should go to space, we should go to Mars, it is similar to the conflicting opinion that no, we should do something about the Earth. It is what is called a techie controversy. That’s exactly what is happening in the world of AI image generation, and I personally have a gut feeling about it.

The identity of the unending question is simply: why can’t it be two-dimensional, and why are only images subject to exclusion? For example, if AI character generation or AI three-dimensional sampling models were to emerge, they would not be as problematic as image generation. This is because text has a tremendous amount of human-generated resources, whereas 3D models have a tremendous amount less; as for 3D, we can give up on the idea that if AI produces it, it will almost be AI, and as for text, there is so much of it that it does not matter much if AI struggles with it, and we are so high on it that It is so high-minded that it is not worth the AI’s effort.

And what comes out on top of that prospect is images, and the art of illustration has clearly grown since the Middle Ages, thanks to the efforts of craftspeople in both the East and West. But no matter how good contemporary art is, AI will instantly surpass its quality and mass produce it. AI image generation has become the dividing line between hating this and not hating it.

Given these issues, Deviantart could be a very useful site in the future, although we don’t know how much of an attitude it has now. This is largely due to the aspect that it does not criticise AI image generation outright. However, it is also undeniable that in the future, or even now, such a thing is a lie and that AI image generation is under tremendous condemnation.

AI writers and others will not be able to do anything about this issue in the future.