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

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#281

Post by Bakary »

mattkevan wrote: post #214

These tools are only weeks or months old. At the moment they’re a novelty. ‘A picture of a dog riding a skateboard by James Gurney | Trending on Artstation’ is clever and astonishing, yes, but we’ve nowhere near scraped the surface of what they can do or how they can be used as part of the creative process. It’s going to take time and a good few rounds of development and pushback, but eventually we’ll wonder how anyo…

Using any Photoshop tool still requires some work. AI is an order of magnitude more multifaceted and autonomous. What happens when we realize that AI art generators consistently and instantly bring forth better contributions than what we can make ourselves over a much larger period of time? The artist will look at their paintbrush and wonder what the point of holding it is when the drunk genie is doing much better on their own. There will still be artists, but there will be space only for the most exceptional of them.

Art software is similar to cruise control. AI art will in a few years become the equivalent of a fully perfected autonomous car that is safer than a human driver in all but the most contrived scenarios.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#282

Post by totetsu »

gdubs wrote: post #29

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 enjoyed this work called 'art is' by poet George Quasha that consists of interviews with artist answering what 'art is'. hundreds of answers over decades and no two the same https://vimeo.com/323912060

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#283

Post by astrange »

dtn wrote: post #272
lifthrasiir wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In some ways it’s just a coincidence that those prompts do something. You can use names of artists that don’t exist and those work just as well, once you’ve figured out what they mean.

Also, even if the model didn’t come with knowledge of an existing artist someone could fine-tune it in, and it’s possible the model can learn about your art style without seeing any of your images anyway.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#284

Post by yieldcrv »

kodah wrote: post #178
gdubs wrote: post #29

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…

Anecdotally I dated an artist for a short time who upon entering my home proceeded to ask me how much I paid for my art and why I would pay for something as awful as what I have. My art was made by a friend of mine who works in a union factory in Texas. Art is his real joy and I was able to snag some pieces from when we were in college together. It's easy to write off that the pieces are just sentimental and therefor…

In my experience, artists are completely divorced from economics, and the concept of the market, while striving to be a recipient of it - making the oppressive desperation their whole identity

For those formally educated, schools should really focus on the economics more instead of relying on magic

The reason to me is that people that buy contemporary art (stuff from living artists) are already going out of their way to do so, knowing that it is divorced from the concept of investment or stores of value. But for other living artists not to really understand the motives or empathize with the customers, going as far to criticize them for any number of reasons (daring to question the stated price, having a taste at all) really undermines the point of bothering with living artists at all.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#285

Post by latchkey »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #238
latchkey wrote: post #8

Perfect. A huge niche opportunity to focus on an art community dedicated to AI generated images.

> A huge niche opportunity kind of an oxymoron. Why bother having an "art community" when one can just generate all the art at random themselves? That's the whole point of DALL-E and co, an endless stream of generated images... no need for a community for that.

I think that is like saying digital cameras will never replace film.

Art is art.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#286

Post by alextheparrot »

dtn wrote: post #272
lifthrasiir wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

“Trending on Artstation” is a genre curated just like Bauhaus or Romanticism. Just the wider populace votes instead of old noble families and wealthy bankers.

I don’t see the moral significance of the former genres versus the latter

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#287

Post by andsoitis »

practice9 wrote: post #225
JohnFen wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you mean by "art". There's different sorts of art for different purposes (commercial, fine, etc.), and for many of these sorts of art having an AI make it would be acceptable. But when I think "art" without a qualifier, I think "fine art". And the purpose of fine art, for me, is human communication of ephemeral things that aren't possible to communicate in language. I don't want AI generated fine a…

> It's no longer about another person communicating something significant and human to me. There is a person thinking about the prompt, typing in the prompt, painstakingly selecting the image that matches what they imagined in their head. It just less elitist, as now even a child can create a complex, meaningful and beautiful images by leveraging the essence of human art (compressed into a single ML model). I, for on…

How would you describe a Rothko in words? Can you create a Van Gogh painting by incantation?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#288

Post by HKH2 »

a_shovel wrote: post #119
HKH2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means of expression through base materials and sell them as physical works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an AI imitating much of that easily any time soon. I don't think it would be that hard to get a machine…

Importantly, a physical painting machine isn't gonna be something anyone with a beefy GPU can download for free. It would pretty much only be useful for factories in Mexico making "Henry Rogers"-style mass-produced paintings [0], which would be bad news for the impoverished workers currently making them, but not for most other painters. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOjTc3F5UB4

Yeah maybe the demand for visual art just isn't there. I imagine a plotter with a brush which has paint injected directly into it, which I don't think would cost that much materials-wise.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#289

Post by mLuby »

sinenomine wrote: post #257
Animats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

Can't help but think about the obvious: maybe we should just skip all the drudgery of the natural convulsive progress and ruthless competition, push "accelerate" and get to the mature AGI civilization regime as soon as possible? And there we should just ask our new creative oracle machines the obvious: "devise an understandable minimally invasive method of uplifting our own cognition and extending our biological life…

Pushing "accelerate" costs a great deal. Investors will want a return on their capital: either in money pressed from unequal access to the resulting paradise or in direct power over this new god.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#290

Post by R0b0t1 »

sinenomine wrote: post #257
Animats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

Can't help but think about the obvious: maybe we should just skip all the drudgery of the natural convulsive progress and ruthless competition, push "accelerate" and get to the mature AGI civilization regime as soon as possible? And there we should just ask our new creative oracle machines the obvious: "devise an understandable minimally invasive method of uplifting our own cognition and extending our biological life…

Yeah, give me a second, singularity exists.
Post reply on HN