71–80 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a good opportunity for an "AI image detection"-as-a-Service.
Is it possible to automate detection of automation? If you can create an algorithm that detects the difference between AI art and human art, wouldn't that algorithm itself be able to create a new AI art algorithm that it itself could not detect?
They should also ban creating digital art, as digital art takes less effort than paper.
> as digital art takes less effort than paper. Hmm I've seen someone draw/paint on both paper and an iPad. It didn't look to me that she was much faster on digital. But then it was original art not copies of something.
I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…
I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died. That sounds a bit negative I guess, but techniques like stable diffusion will be applied to other problem domains, so all other art forms like music and creative writing will be automated within the next 5-10 years. And if computers can do that, they can do anything. Because that's how our brains work. Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns…
It's like saying that computers killed artists. AI is just a tool, it still need a human in control and guiding it, can't generate anything on his own (yet). If anything, this can help creativity.
Art takes effort. Training models and feeding them information takes effort. AI is not magic. Art is just getting another toolset.
Typing a prompt into DALLE does not take effort and it does not make you an artist. Don't kid yourself that the people generating art and submitting it to these sites are the same ones writing and training the AI.
I think we have established by now that photography is art, so your argument doesn't feel like it would stand the test of time much. Just like the photography one didn't.
It seems like the actual problem they're trying to solve is volume, so why not just rate limit submissions? They just need to look at their median submission rate prior to a few weeks ago and then make that the submission rate limit.
These communities are explicitly saying "no" to this disruptive technology. If you want to go make a new gallery site for showing off your prompt engineering that's your own lookout, have fun trying to build a community and figure out how to keep the site funded. But you can't come spam our existing communities of people who've dedicated decades to their craft with the messy, incoherent results of the whole six months you've spent learning to be a "prompt engineer".
I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…
In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument was as follows:
Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by comparison weighs about 4 GB. If the model somehow stored those images (completely disregarding texts) in the compressed form, it would be less than 2 bytes (EDITED) per each image. Whoever downloaded an image from the internet can see this is absurd. In reality 4 GB of data is the juice extracted from the data set, and if you could actually recover an original image from it then the juice must have had a recognizable residue, which would be pretty undesirable.
I think the communities involved here like digital artists, furries etc got a lot of attention hating on NFTs last year, so they are doubling down with the anti-art-generator movement. But I don't think this one will be so successful. Like sure, maybe art community sites could require you to tag prompt-generated art just as a way to label things, but in terms of widespread usage the cat is out of the bag. Whenever I…
Sure, AI generated art is probably out of the bag, but to lump it in with NFTs and such is an interesting rhetorical move, since the only thing that really links them is their new-ness. That Blade Runner quote can be used to shut down any critique of an emerging technology precisely because it fetishizes new-ness for its own sake, and assigns it an agency of its own, inevitable like the tide. It becomes a cause that…
Sure I think there's always a conversation to be had about how to incorporate tech. Like Reddit banning celeb deepfakes is probably the choice I would have made as well if I set policy on the site.
But what I'm noticing is over the top anger at usage per se. (Someone linked the 'reverse monet' tweet elsewhere in this discussion and the quote tweets there are unhinged.) That's what I'm saying can not be 'killed'--these breakthroughs in large language models
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the future we'll hire blade runners to find and destroy AI art
Someone needs to make an AI art detector and name it Voight-Kampff. Ironically, it would be a great application for machine learning.
I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…
I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died. That sounds a bit negative I guess, but techniques like stable diffusion will be applied to other problem domains, so all other art forms like music and creative writing will be automated within the next 5-10 years. And if computers can do that, they can do anything. Because that's how our brains work. Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns…
https://twitter.com/hollyherndon/status/1567694502382518274?...