151–160 of 356 posts
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 agree that images only through AI should be removed from art sites. The issue with AI art is that the only human contribution in those pieces is the creation of the prompt and the curation of the final image. Without sensory and experiential inputs of its own, AI can only interpolate between real images and styles. So an AI generated image doesn't add much artistic value since its not expressing any new deep truth…
> any new deep truth What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically. > factual understanding of the real world Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has brought.
I just rewatched Goodfellas the other day. No doubt that film brought a deeper understanding for many many people about mafia philosophy, history and events, and inspired more research (I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after watching it, myself). Dali's melting clocks might suggest a new way to conceive of time. I only dabble a little in science fiction, but my impression is that it has historically inspired plenty of scientific and engineering endeavors, including AI generated art (and I'm sure there are plenty of dystopians out there that may show how it could go wrong). Reading literature from everything between the ancients and contemporaries, I'm constantly finding things that parallel my current interpersonal challenges and give me new insights.
What is "truth" to you?
For this kind of artwork, the kind made by artists who feel threatened by AI, I’ve been thinking for a while that a computer could likely do it better. Intricate detail, repetition, sampling and recombination of popular styles, optimization for aesthetic popularity and mass appeal — these practices are all squarely in the domain of automation, data science, and marketing. We might call it the Netflix-ification of illustration art, but it’s quite different, because the tools for making are available to many. As an arts educator and artist, I welcome these new tools, as they allow easy experimentation for newcomers, but also as they reveal that art based primarily in deployment of technical skill and eye-popping graphics is missing something vital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Pressing a shutter button on your camera and tweaking a few parameters in settings does not take effort and it does not make one an artist." 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.
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 like the more eastern idea that art is mastery of skill and art pieces are more of a byproduct we can observe. Photoshopping or making an AI make art still takes skill, so it's still art - just in a different category. Putting a robot in a boxing match or an AI in a human car race wouldn't make much sense, but robot vs robot would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Pressing a shutter button on your camera and tweaking a few parameters in settings does not take effort and it does not make one an artist." 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.
I think you're just proving my point actually, being able to take photos doesn't make everyone an artist or every photo art. To take truly great photos you still need to understand basics like composition and lighting (just like illustration and painting) which do take effort, and your still not guaranteed to get good photos. A camera, like AI, is simply a tool and it's no doubt already helping artists, but to think…
However, there is definitely nuance to generating art using AI that is similar to photography as art in a way. There are massive blog posts and writeups that exist already, talking about different techniques for crafting prompts and fiddling with the model to achieve different results. Stuff like how ordering of the words matters (e.g., the order changes how much the model weighs a word), how the choice of different samplers affect the outcome, which words tend to be strong modifiers (e.g., if you want something looking like a real photo, add a specific camera model name), the number of iterations and guidance scale parameter choice, etc.
That's barely scratching the surface, given the whole thing became available less than a month ago, and people discover all those methods and techniques in real time. I am willing to bet that in a year, the complexity of a "good prompt" will be lightyears away from where we are now.
It's like someone invented a music instrument/artmaking tool, except it behaves a lot like a blackbox. So instead of developing techniques from the base knowledge of how the tool was created, we have to test and try bajillion different things to figure out how to get what we want.
And no, I am not trying to make a claim that generating art using those AI models is an equivalent to creating an acrylic painting. Just like i wouldnt claim that taking a great (in terms of art) photograph is an equivalent to creating an acrylic painting. Both of those stand in classes of their own.
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And vintage sign making is now highly valued (whether hand-painted or digitally produced simulcra) We tend to value scarcity. Things that resemble AI art will become passé and anything that is difficult/impossible for AI to produce will become highly regarded. I'm very curious to see how this shift in popular and/or high-brow taste will play out.
thousands of small companies sustain and employ humans, reliably now as sign makers? I live in a metropolitan area, sign makers were reliably found and nearby in my living memory. There are very few now, mainly as corporate franchises with catalog contents. How is the value of scarcity you refer to, being circulated in terms of reliable income and stability for humans living now? How plural are the products in modern…
Things are really going to suck for working artists who can't adjust. That's not cool and I should have acknowledged it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
probably should have said photographs, as photographs are more similar to AI art than computer generated art is
In much the same way, sure you could dedicate your life to learning the craft of prompting an ML model to produce unique, novel, and interesting art, but these communities are saying "we want these to be considered a different class of art" and as mostly self organizing communities they are well within their rights to do so.