Here’s my shitty drawing of something AI can’t draw
Time to move the goal posts again:
My career as an artist is in shambles
You didn’t even draw it on a napkin, you used a computer. Real Artists don’t use digital tools.
Oh wait, it’s not the 90s anymore and that argument is dead? Oops, sorry I was in a coma for a few decades.
Welcome to the world of tomorrow!
Sorry about, well, the state of everything
I’ll be pedantic and point out that only a robot would fill a glass of wine to the brim. Asides from that it looks legit, though I wonder how well it would handle generating a glass of wine that is being held out drank from…
If this is a reference to Asimov’s novels, kudos! Though I believe in his books, humans would fill the glass to the brim to test if someone was a robot, because only a machine wouldn’t spill a drop.
That’s actually pretty good depiction of a chunk of roast beef with a revolving rotor attached to it and flying upwards.
Can we just cut the back and forth and accept AI as another tool and let soulless AI content die off naturally. No one listens to music that’s all autotune after we decided that it was shit. The same will be said for AI.
Some people need something to rage and virtue signal against. Those who work in private STEM sectors or took machine learning classes years before the LLM craze already understand the tool is here and are willing to learn to work with it if applicable in their job or daily life.
Those who don’t understand anything about the science of machine learning and are angry at the how megacorporations got away with unconsentually scraping their copyright infringed data off the internet for the first iterations of training data still get to let off some steam by calling it ‘hyped autocomplete just as bad as NFTs that will never do what a person can’.
If I were an artsy type whos first exposure to ML was having my work stolen followed by the thief bragging to my face about how copy protection laws dont matter to the powerful and now they can basically copy my honed style 1 to 1 with a computer to sell as an product, I would be unreasonably pissed too and not interested this whole 'AI’thing. Megacorps made chatGPT and stable diffusion using my work therefore AI bad. I get it.
That said, I’m not an artsy type or an idealist. I’m a practical engineer who builds systems to process the flows of information and energy with the tools available at my dispersal. Theres more to machine learning than proprietary models made with stolen information to be sold to th masses. Instead models are just the next new way to process large datasets full of complicated information. Its just that now were taking cues from natures biological information processing systems. Whether such processes prove more certain and effective to the old analog and digital ways have yet to be seen. Perhaps using these new tools will open up entirely different ways of treating information for all of society. Perhaps it will be just another niche thing for researchers to write papers about. Time will tell.
I will see ai as a tool when it behaves like a tool to help human creativity and not syphon it to make derivative trash; AI has potential but current applications are very dependent on training and mimicking content that was already made. Why waste my life viewing that with so many great artists and writers out there?
It does behave like a tool. Just like every other tool it can be used improperly.
bullshit! By the way who is your favorite AI artist? tell me something good about their work?
I like neuralviz. It’s really funny and has a lot of continuity jokes.
I don’t know any AI artists. Me i gues… I generated a coupled… they sucked… but I like the guy anyway.
Places i would deploy AI:
-Foggy background scenes
-Random textures
-custom shadin
I could go on but I’m not a professional artist so there could be already great tools for those use cases. I’m sure I could find a use if I spent more time in the space.
I think that if you can’t make the art without relying on AI then it isn’t art.
I can’t design a Minecraft house (art) without having access to Minecraft
I value your discussion on this topic, even if I disagree, but this specific point isnt very good imoMinecraft doesn’t replace the mental processes involved in making the art though
I used to play Minecraft and watch movies at the same time because neither required much mental processes, what did M$ do to MC?!
As you wish
Be real, this is clearly an AI generated image.
No, I can feel the intention of the artist flowing through the napkin.
Randomly made this when clearing a pen’s nib on a post-it
what an esteemed little guy :)
this is some really good shitty half-assed doodle
Somewhat related: Has anyone else gotten the fountain pen version of this? I’ve tried three of them over the years hoping for a functional refillable pen, but they’ve all stopped flowing or never worked at all.
You’d think they would fix the design eventually, but alas?
Great pen! Adorable doodle!
Absolutely! I want to see art and human expression and not corporate generated productivity outputs.
Everyone is welcome to do just that in !sillydrawingrequests@sopuli.xyz :)
Probably an unpopular take, but I think it’s got its uses. My artistic skills is not too great, and I don’t want to spend the time to get better or pay someone to draw a banner or icon for a Lemmy community or D&D character, for example, because it’s not that important to me. I’m cool if an AI can get kinda close to what I want and it’s nothing I consider to be load-bearing. To be clear, I mostly use it as something to fill up the blank spaces.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while. It can also be a fucking hilarious toy if you’re bored. I gave Dall-e a picture of my wife and her sisters and asked it to give me an upscaled version of the picture and it basically drew them as the canker sisters. Good times.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while
yeah, probably because the person that generated that image actually took time to write a detailed prompt, used appropriate settings on good hardware, generated many images, and maybe even fed it some composition images to base the generated image off, instead of just typing in “shark motorbike”
Depends on the artist. Shitty at drawing but got skills on the comp? Ill take the art you used AI for.
Plenty of AI slop out there sure, but there is also plenty of drawn/painted/sculpted/whatever slop out there as well.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
To me, it’s more that I get a glimpse of the human behind the art, even or especially if they’re shitty at drawing. That’s why I also like memes which are thrown together haphazardly. If it’s pixel-perfect imagery, I don’t see much from that at all.
Not referring to the Adobe model that compensates artists in the training set, but besides them there has been great debate on the ethics of ingesting & regurgitating. (“but small humans do it” etc)
Which is to say of course it could be the best art in the world and it wouldn’t be beautiful in those eyes.
This is Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap.
I thought Sturgeons law was that 98% of everything on the internet is crap?
It is explicitly “90 percent of everything is crap,” emphasis on “everything.”
Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you prefer), the Internet is indeed included in everything.
These heroes act like they’re patrons of actual artists, or do anything with actual art other than ignore it, or do anything with creative works that would require art but don’t have it. They don’t seek out prototypes of games (board or video) they just sit back and consume and then have the nerve to whine about what’s produced for them.
“I judge art on the basis of how it was made, not on its merit in terms of the emotions and thoughts it elicits from me”
Is it not possible that how something is made also elicits emotions and thoughts?
Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
Imagine arguing that flavor is what is important in a dish and not the type of knife used to cut the vegetables, and have someone respond he’d rather drink piss.
what if the knife were made out of the skulls of infants
Then that is a fucked up knife, but doesn’t change anything about the dish.
Yes, it is. We live in capitalism.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
Ok weirdo. Enjoy your literal poop!
Why does AI art have “no authenticity”?
Because if you use words that only have objective definitions then you can arbitrarily move your definition around if people come up with counter-examples.
It’s a way of creating an argument that means nothing and also can’t be argued against on Internet forums where there are no rules (unlike, say a debate stage or court room where you have to rationally prove your points).
I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the artA stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as “bland”, “samey”, “wrong”. The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
The intent of the artist
There is someone using the model and it’s their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don’t consider the intent of the camera.
The context surrounding the art
The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It’s also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren’t being fair.
We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn’t be the defining factor.
My own interpretation of the art
You largely ignored this since it is essentially “the thoughts and emotions it envokes”. It is also arguably the most important.
We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don’t call people stupid.
I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
I disagree with your points fundamentally, and I believe the difference is in how we interpret both art and the creation of art. I do not believe that a prompter is able to convey enough intent for it to count.
This could be compared to someone commisioning a drawing for, for example, a story. The story and direction they give, that would be the prompt or what lead to it, in this case, would display their intent. The drawing itself, however, would not display their artistic vision, but that of the artist they commissioned to draw it. Now, they might coördinate with said artist to get their visions to align as closely as possible, but as I said, models have no vision, and so none can be aligned with. You could ‘find’ an image generated by such a model that aligns with what you wish for, but there is no intent behind it.The environmental damage is inherent to the technology, as matrix multiplications are inherently not very efficient, and any given model runs a lot of them. Running a model at home seems more efficient because you only generate for yourself, but if every user of diffusion where to do this, the cost would not be better.
I do not understand what you see in the video you sent me. It does not, to me, seem to carry a message. Sure, some of it’s imagery can be aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot interpret it as carrying any meaning.
Oh, and dw, I did not mean to call you stupid, I think the ideas about art you have specifically are stupid. That does not necessarily carry over to any other part of you.
Prompting can be quite involved, especially when you use techniques like ControlNet, img2img, and inpainting. In the video I linked, they used real footage of dancers and the rest is essentially very complicated post processing. There’s countless way to use AI generation and it can easily be blended with other mediums.
While typing a quick prompt and generating something in a few minutes might not qualify as art, dismissing the entire medium is shortsighted.
The environmental damages are there but you chose to ignore the environmental damages of every other form. Even using cloud computing pales in comparaison with the cost of shipping over brushes from China.
I see in the video the things you were asking for in your previous comment:
It has clear creative intent and objectives. Context wise, it weaves together multiple art forms in a complex, cohesive piece. It’s clearly pleasing and brings about an emotional response. It’s a strong example of how AI can be thoughtfully integrated into the creative process.
Having a message and meaning is just another goal post even more subjective then the last which is the real issue. You are gate keeping something so subjective, and calling any differing opinion stupid is brutally obnoxious.
Tbh, this is a valid take, but it’s just as valid to judge art based on the experience of viewing it.
Idiot: “AI” will save us all!
Genius: “AI” is complete slop!!
\s
To be fair, “AI will save us” is a take that is incredibly stupid.
- There is no “AI”.
- There’s nothing inherently wrong or bad with generated art. The assumption that generated art is “slop” is literally the inverted assumption that “AI” will save us. But in reality there’s lots of cool pictures and many cool videos that were generated.
- If you’re mad about copyright/exploitation, the actual problem has always been capitalism.
Sharing AI art has the same vibe as telling people about your dreams.
Some dreams are wild tho
Even worse.
It’s like someone describing a tv show you don’t care about in painful detail, only without the enthusiasm.
Same guy probably complains about his graphics card having a crappy frame rate.
Aside from when it’s trending (like right now), no you fucking don’t.
I streamed, for a while. Nobody gave half a shit. Nobody cares about the “art” that I spent days drawing. Nobody cares about the stories that I voice-acted in my closet because I don’t have a studio to do such things in. I’m poor, and I’m not good at making things. If you claim to care about my “art”, I grantee that you’re a liar.
I don’t do art for you. I do this for me. I will use all available tools to realize my vision. I do not care for your approval.
You know, at this point part of the fun of using AI art is pissing off the holier-than-thou luddites.
Luddites would be attacking the capitalism that’s exploiting us all, that coerces artists in serving capital, etc.
These people just think all generated art is bad because it doesn’t have a “soul” or whatever. They’re literally preferring napkins and poop on the walls.
Just like part of the fun of voting Trump is pissing off the holier-than-thou liberals
Oh yeah, using an image generator is totally the same as voting for the literal fascist that’s putting people in concentration camps. That’s very comparable.
Both fill the world with shit.
Voting for Nazis doesn’t make art more accessible to people with disabilities.
Well if they’re looking at generated art, then they deserve the gas chamber… \s
These kinds of wacky equivalences are part of why we have fascism.
Guess I should’ve gone with rolling coal
Fair
