Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Edited to fix a typo and add:
I enjoy watching some youtube videos about people making dioramas and doing other craft-type stuff. There's a few who use toys or models or scenery stuff like fake trees, fake grass, etc, add some lighting, etc and create some really cool things. It doesn't matter that they're using purchased props for at least part of the work. It's still very impressive and enjoyable.
yeah obviously our tastes differ wildly
I would buy any of the outfits and charcters generated in those images in 3D but I know others like and buy different stuff, would be boring if we were all the same
AI art is here to stay that much is certain.
It will not be argued out of existence.
Greebo might be referring to the comment concerning the enviroment I made.
Because creating art is fun, is a theraphy, relaxing.
In my opinion, yes it is very much different. A content creator made that item to be purchased by people like me to use for this purpose. These AI programs are using people's artworks without their permission or compensation. It's more like going to a torrent site and pirating the latest Daz releases. using them without paying for them.
I agree. Despite the voiced issues of AI, it is not going away. And I see it's potential for good and bad. Unfortunately, right now, what I see is a flood of AI images produced by eager amateurs, and the results are impressive for the first hundred images, then you begin to get jaded. It's all the same.
Even if it's different, it's all the same. I wish the amateurs would stop showing us every freakin' image they produce. Wait until you get a real stunner, or one with distinctive personality other than that of the AI.
No, it isn't like piracy because people are really misunderstanding what "trained" means in relation to AI.
You don't just type "fantasy warrior in the style of Frank Frazetta" and get an exact replica of a Frazetta work. You get an image with a ton of flaws and extra fingers with the basic color palette, overall level of detail, and perhaps some recurring elements that are present in the majority of Frazetta's images. You get what a machine thinks matches the style after looking at a lot of reference images - just like artists do when they're learning. When someone creates a painting in the style of a famous artist, no one says they stole his art or used it without his permission. Half the stuff in 3D marketplaces are 'inspired' by existing content, sometimes a little too much so. We are trained on the art of others too, AI just does it a million times faster.
I haven't turned to AI because I'm lazy, I use it because I actually prefer the artistic style and I like being surprised by the results. I do more manual postwork on AI images than I do on my 3D renders because I have to in order for them to not look like sloppy messes. But in the end, I will use this as a tool, just like I'll continue to use purchased 3D content and whatever else can help me make what I want to.
Agreed. There is a difference between being inspired by and just using anothers actual work.
That's a big point on the topic. And it's not only the well-meaning artist using the tool. It might be cheap to pay someone to generate fakes of your art, just to destroy you, meaning ... also the bad guy with the ai will exist, and probably will not need as much of consideration for a results, enabling them to be efficient.
Extending from there, ignoring copyright fully, in terms of actually allowing copyright on the results, makes the bad guy with the ai an even more capable adversary - and that ahead of time! So someone made all the renders and everybody else has half a foot in jail, or similarly, if they can efficiently fill the filtering systems (text, image, ...) with generated content, they'll directly prevent others publishing something similar on the big platforms. This is one of the dangers of the filtering wave we are seeing in some countries, including german and EU-legislation. Just pulling that lever, to allow some players to add data to the filters in bulk, independently of ai-generated content, poses for another nightmare scenario. Just for a side note.
:sigh:
These discussions are as pointless as the political ones I go through every day. No one listens, no one learns, and no one is going to change anyone else's mind.
Looking at this AI art one can learn alot about techniques to copy and try "manually". One can even alter those adaptations from AI manually.
The points made and the logic of the argument is valid. Change is coming whether ethical or not , and adaptation to this new reality will be the only option.
People are panicking out of their minds.
AI is automatization of generic art. Which is vast majority of art available anywhere. "Pain it like X", "draw it in Y style", etc etc. Especially game art.
Unless you had a say in the outcome. Tools there will be many, including storywriting and 3D placement, animations and what not, at whatever pricing to come, no doubt. There may be toxic dead ends, e.g. if a cloud service dominates everything, and nothing else has a chance to develop anymore (or gets bought or otherwise destroyed), so in the end stuff doesn't get done anymore, people lose abilities, and we just end up in an infernal sink. In theory. Of course the pervention of the latter scenario WOULD be the job of at least one US gov. agency. It hadn't worked that way with big tech, though. (Some corporation losing ground in one or another instance is not the same as an actual monopoly or cartel getting prevented or at least undone in time.)
Apparently Disney has an AI system that can age and de-age actors in the most realistic fashion anybody's seen so far. I wonder if it can get hands right?
Actually, this is an excellent example of how humans differ from AI, LOL. I mean, you can just write some code and change how a AI operates and what its objectives are. Can't do that with people!
I recently trained an AI out of curiosity on some quick Daz renders. What I found is that the custom prompt can take a LOT from the original images I fed it. If I set the strength of the prompts high enough, even the background that was in my renders starts to show up in the AI images. That background is nothing more than the Daz Iray default HDRI we all have. If you make it visible in a render, you know what it looks like. Even strands of hair fall in the same exact way, as there was a slight jaggie in the hair as it bends over the shoulders. This jaggie was present in many of my AI generated images.
This idea that AI is "learning" anything is a fallacy. The AI does not think or learn. It is simply a program running lines of code. It can, and it will, use significant parts of images that it trained on for the derivative works it builds. The AI is not using thought or any form of creative process to place these pixels into the image. This is fundamentally different from how a human learns or thinks or creates.
I am really sick of these arguments that try to say that AI is just learning like a person would. No, the AI is not a human.
And the question remains, why did Stable Diffusion remove famous names from its prompt library? In my opinion this seems like an admission that something was wrong with the current system. I want to make it clear that is my opinion. You can decide for yourselves why they did this. I personally cannot think of another reason.
I never said AI is going away. The cat is out of the bag. There is no reverse course at this point with Stable Diffusion available for public users to download and customize themselves. However, we can limit the damage that is going to be caused by these generators with proper regulation. Certainly there is never a guarantee that all people will follow the laws, that is human nature (hey, yet another difference from AI). However, it can curtail the impact to a degree.
We have speeding limits for a reason. If speed limits had no meaning, they would not exist. While people still crash and die because of speeding on occassion, the overall number of such accidents is reduced because of the attempts at enforcing speed limits and other laws for safe driving. The same goes for pretty much any law in existance, including copyrights. We all know just how much Daz-Tafi works to avoid any copyright problems on its website and store. Daz is trying to lawfully drive the speed limit and avoid any tickets. If AI works become a risk due to copyright regulations, then I would expect a good many reputable companies to avoid selling risky products based on them. They would have to be able to prove that every image in the AI training was not copyrighted. And hey, this is possible to do. You can show your prompt and image database. So it can be done the right way. Companies that cannot do that will face problems if regulations on AI pass. But I rather believe that the AI databases will suck without their copyrighted works to pull data from.
We can also look at the power of payment processors. Payment processors can strictly limit what people sell, for example sexually explicit materials. In most places there is no law saying you cannot sell sexual content, yet the payment processors have shown they will come down on this content. Payment processors could also enforce AI copyright in the same way. This is purely hypothetical, but it is something that could be possible. If the payment processors were to demand AI art to be removed or risk losing their payment processor, you can bet that many places would stop selling AI art overnight. And hey, this would not even require any regulations to take place. Paypal could all by itself cause AI art to go underground. Of course that doesn't kill it, but it can make AI something that many will avoid. Maybe you don't use paypal, but then you have customers who do, and do not use anything else.
So don't go thinking that AI art is a completely unstoppable force. It absolutely can be pushed back against and regulated to the darker sides of the net. That doesn't mean it will be, again, I want to be clear about that. But this is not over yet. Even though the cat is out of the bag, a fence of regulation can still be built around the cat to limit what it can do. We can build a cat proof fence like Australia to keep the cats away from endangered animals (yes, that is a thing that actually exists). That is an extreme measure, but they at least tried. Cats are not native to the land, and cats have been killing things. A lot of things. So to protect endangered species, Australia built a massive cat proof fence around an area. While the cat proof fence sounds comical, without it there is a strong possibility that several species could go extinct. Like some artists.
I tend to liken it to someone cutting up an untold number of pictures and making one big picture out of a collage of those cut up pictures.
I'm going to avoid the pros and cons of AI other than saying there's probably no stuffing it back into the bottle and creating art is only one small aspect - its advancing pretty rapidly.
This video covers 3D models generated through AI, and the improvements in one year.
With ChatGPT you can write code.
https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/
I've been tinkering with Midjourney since the start and the advances made has been staggering.
The hookahs were generated from the phrase : hookah, 8k - and that's all I used.
In what nation?
Agreed! Companies can't control regular3D piracy, what makes anyone think they can regulate the theft of images using AI. It's nothing different than a user taking the textures from DAZ and editing them and then selling or sharing them saying they made them
30 seconds.