I'm fascinated by the idea that AI-generated images will eventually be the primary data source for training the algorithms themselves. Kind of like a giant positive feedback loop. Eventually the "art" might not be about generating a single image from a prompt phrase, but influencing art through the generation of the most successful algorithms.
Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
271–280 of 356 posts
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#272I 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…
> Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. 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…
The model size:training image ratio seems more like an implementation detail more than anything.
The fact that people are writing prompts with named artists, and phrases such as "Trending on Artstation"- yeah, I'm not sure if you can just handwave that away.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#273They 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.
To be clear: I fully think that digital art is art.
But it is a lot less effort in a lot of ways. If I'm painting in Photoshop or Krita, I have layers. I can adjust blending modes. I can move them up and down. I can easily ctrl+z a mistake. I can rotate my workspace quickly and easily in ways that would be difficult with physical media. I can easily find the color I want without having to purchase more paints and blend them, or colored pencils, or whatever. I can create brushes and variations on them to match my style. I can go on with dozens of other things.
I happen to think all of that is a good thing, and don't know that comparing digital art to AI generated art is a good analogy, but digital art 100% makes many things you do in art easier.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#274How can you even tell? Any human can just claim they made it.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#275I 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 paint a fair bit. Artists all know how hard it is to innovate, and how difficult it is to faithfully physically represent ideas, images, and emotions that they experience internally. People don't respect works created by algorithms because people feel algorithms (1) do not have a rich internal state, that is (2) challenging to express, (3) will one day die, and (4) never occur again.
There's analogues in music. We have algorithms that can write jazz standards with all the same essential characteristics of Blue in Green, or So What, but no one cares. People just want to hear Miles Davis and Bill Evans do it.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#276I 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…
Yes, it really is storing all those images inside it, as well as an evolved NN compression algorithm specific to that dataset.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#277I 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 paint a fair bit. Artists all know how hard it is to innovate, and how difficult it is to faithfully physically represent ideas, images, and emotions that they experience internally. People don't respect works created by algorithms because people feel algorithms (1) do not have a rich internal state, that is (2) challenging to express, (3) will one day die, and (4) never occur again. There's analogues in music. We…
> We have algorithms that can write jazz standards with all the same essential characteristics of Blue in Green, or So What, but no one cares.
That's definitely not true. In the areas that make money with some semblance of reliability for the artists (low budget film / game scores esp. asset flippers, shitty TV shows, music for ads, etc), people are going to be more than happy with a magic "make music" button without having to pay for a composer. Like, if you thing that anything in this video is out of reach for today's AIs... https://youtu.be/QgU9H9dECt8
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#278I 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…
I will never understand you AI optimists.
AI will never create remarkable or even widely popular music. Well, never say never. But 5 to 10 years? Not a snowballs chance in hell.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#279I 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…
NFTs and AI art feel pretty similar in that it was obvious from their very inception exactly how they will be abused: relentless opportunistic spam.
Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have the exact prompt that essentially generated Vemeer's works? Omitted in the parent, but I also noted that while it is hard to reconcile the idea of human-directed transformative use with ML models, it might be actually easier to verify the models' plagarism---which is not equivalent to copyright infringement but can be a problem by its own---once you have a right prompt as they are decidable.
I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this: https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png And, for a slightly different scenario, here's what I got for 'pikachu': https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png But I think this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule (similar to Copilot regurgitating the text of software licenses). Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on…
It does a pretty good Mario