Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#161

Post by egypturnash »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #160
egypturnash wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between "this is a tool that makes some things easier" and "this is definitely endangering the skill I spent a lifetime learning". You will know it when you see it.

There is no big difference. The steam engine put 90% of the world out of agricultural work. That is a big difference. Now you can buy strawberries all year round and drink coconut water in Alaska. Nobody will care where their art comes from any more than you care about how your food's field was plowed; and all their lives will be better for it.

There is a huge difference in how you will feel when the tool that might put you out of work shows up.

Keep your comment somewhere. Come back to it when you look at a new tool that promises to merrily trample on your entire field’s income and provide an endless source of “usable, I guess” substitutes. Let it provide solace as you stare into a future with no room for the craft you’ve spent a lifetime honing.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#162

Post by PaulsWallet »

cercatrova wrote: post #143
ThisIsMyAltFace wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This argument comes up over and over and over again and it is wrong. These models are not learning or being inspired in the same sense humans are. The laws tgat apply to humans should not be applied to them.

You're right, AI generated pictures should not be copyrighted, as is the case today. People should be free to mix and remix pictures via AI as much as they desire.

This is where I imagine things are going to get into trouble because how are you going to determine what is AI and what isn't? Especially when Stable Diffusion is directly classifying artist and cloning their signatures and watermarks. What about things that are started with AI and refined by human?

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#163

Post by m4jor »

p1esk wrote: post #136
vanadium1st wrote: post #98

I am a working digital artist, my personal feed is filled with takes like this. I understand the crisis that artists go through currently and I understand their emotions. I've personally made peace with it already, but it will take time for everyone and there will be a lot of concern, rage and bargaining in the process. All of us artists woke up in the world where the thing we were learning to produce all of our live…

Do you think the AI will become better than the best human artist? In the foreseeable future?

Of course it will given enough time.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#164

Post by p1esk »

_nalply wrote: post #156
vanadium1st wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that it already did, honestly. The output and range of Dalle-2 and Stable Diffusion is unmatched by any human artist. I am not only talking about quantity and range - the best illustrations generated by Stable Diffusion are honestly unbelievable and could totally get on the front pages on artstation on their own. The digital paintings, the 3d renders, landscapes, portraits, concept arts, character designs -…

I feel that the illustrations are still at least somewhat in the uncanny valley. I don't think that the quality is already there. What you see is only a subset. Many creations are really bad, creepy and unbalanced. I think this will change up to the extent that the majority of people won't care.

What you see is only a subset. Many creations are really bad, creepy and unbalanced.

This is also true for human artists.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#165

Post by flipbrad »

upwardbound wrote: post #115
flipbrad wrote: post #86

We'll want to be a little careful with how society responds to this. Basquiat put it well ( http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html ) Excerpt follows: "We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, al…

Just to avoid confusion, the page & excerpts you cite are from an 1800's French economist named Bastiat, not from the legendary 1980's neo-expressionist painter Basquiat. Since this thread is about art, I figured people might read the name Basquiat in your comment and think that he wrote the quote you cite, which would in my mind give it greater relevance to this discussion than it has.

I appreciate the correction - I only wish I could still edit my original post! But thank you

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#166

Post by evilbob93 »

p1esk wrote: post #147
vanadium1st wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that it already did, honestly. The output and range of Dalle-2 and Stable Diffusion is unmatched by any human artist. I am not only talking about quantity and range - the best illustrations generated by Stable Diffusion are honestly unbelievable and could totally get on the front pages on artstation on their own. The digital paintings, the 3d renders, landscapes, portraits, concept arts, character designs -…

Wow, interesting. I’m an ML researcher creating models for music generation and I can say with certainty we are pretty far from generating human level quality music.

Depends what your benchmark is. As the AI stuff is getting better, things like MIDI and Autotune lower the bar to where it's understandable some might see the convergence coming sooner than later.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#167

Post by evilbob93 »

egypturnash wrote: post #34
phi-y wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of tools like this is eliminating those margins. This type of automation will eliminate junior graphic designer roles and add new requirements for the experienced graphic designers. Both of these affect the job market by making it harder to get started and stay. There will always be the high end and boutique jobs. The picassos and rembrandts will continue to find work. The starving artist who sells out to…

Yes. The journey to master artist begins with finding a place to crank out a lot of apprentice/journeyman level art. You get a little bit better at some aspect of the craft with every piece you make; eventually this makes a very visible difference from your early work. Regular critique from your peers and mentors helps a lot too. Rembrandt started out as an apprentice, with about four years starting around 13 before…

Problem is that the entry-level stuff is going to be done by the AI and fewer people are going to have the chance to go through the steps of becoming a master artist.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#168

Post by p1esk »

evilbob93 wrote: post #166
p1esk wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, interesting. I’m an ML researcher creating models for music generation and I can say with certainty we are pretty far from generating human level quality music.

Depends what your benchmark is. As the AI stuff is getting better, things like MIDI and Autotune lower the bar to where it's understandable some might see the convergence coming sooner than later.

The bar is the same as with human music - if people pick it on Spotify without realizing it’s AI generated with zero human involvement then it’s good enough.

Re: As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

#169

Post by greysphere »

krapp wrote: post #145
greysphere wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like a big stretch to consider an algorithm to be 'inspired'. Where are the bits that correspond to 'inspiration'? Seems like that would answer a lot of big questions in philosophy.

Where are the neurons that correspond to "inspiration?" It's algorithms all the way down.

I claim that claiming computer algorithms are inspired is a big stretch.

I claim humans can be inspired.

I don't claim to know how human inspiration happens, or if neurons have anything to do with it. (They may, but I make no claim). Not being able to describe the process by which human inspiration happens doesn't invalidate either of my claims.

If there is a satisfactory non-bit based explanation to how computer algorithms achieve inspiration, I would accept that to. We have the advantage with computers, that their activity is conveniently summarized by their programs which are represented in bits, so expecting an explanation in that form I think is reasonable.

The defense if the claim of human inspiration is (1) we have that word for the concept (2) we have thousands of years of thought, philosophy and literature giving support and definition to the concept.

Post reply on HN