Years of refinement on the taste of people with no taste has produced a model with no taste. Crazy
I tasted the model, but then I spit it right back out.
they put a special coating on the model to discourage this behavior
Coarse is better
31–40 of 125 posts
Re: Coarse is better
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I define art as something that evokes an emotion or feeling. I’ve seen people wax poetic about the ”meaning” of an imagine only to find out that the image was created synthetically. Were those “feelings” not authentic?
Is a car crash art?
Perhaps it has to be a more sophisticated emotion, such as feeling tired of a hackneyed definition.
Re: Coarse is better
#33The author claims the old models are better at creating art than the new ones. I disagree; art requires consciousness and intent while this type of model is capable of neither.
I'm pretty sure people have created images via random physical processes, then selected the best ones, and people have called it "art." That's no different than cherry picking AI generated images that resonate. The only difference is the anti-generative AI crusade being spearheaded by gatekeepers who want to keep their technical skills scarce in their own interests.
Re: Coarse is better
#34I love the inherent wonder and joy in this post around the original images.
Re: Coarse is better
#35Another word for coarse is impasto technique, where the paint is so thick the painting-knife or brush strokes are visible and leave a pronounced texture (e.g. Van Gogh, Rembrandt).
Another cool prompt could be specific painting techniques (e.g. pencil shading, glaze) as if you were training an actual artist in a specific technique.
Re: Coarse is better
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Found the zealot. Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk? If so, then why lambast the lesser folk over their ignorance of the secret knowledge?
> Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk? Kind of. If everyone on the planet can paint the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, then it’s not anything special anymore is it? Especially if it reduces the process to asking the world’s most prolific counterfeit machine to do it for you.
Is art then just the outcome? The artifact that was produced?
What's your criteria then for who is allowed to produce art? If allowing everyone to create it lessens its value such that it becomes worthless, there must be a cutoff.
If your goal is to ensure the continuity of human expression, limiting who is allowed to create art and narrowly defining art to great works kind of misses the point.
Re: Coarse is better
#37I'm no image gen expert but these prompts are downright terrible even by my standards.
Are you really complaining that ", from the British Museum." leads to it a painting in the actual British Museum? Just remove the sentence, and you'll be fine. Now good luck trying to make Midjourney place the image at the museum!
I'm a paying MJ user and am impressed by Nano Banana. They're different models. They each serve their purpose.
This analysis is just noise. Yawn.
Ironically, even an LLM with its fake reasoning capabilities can point out the issue with the prompts if you ask it to critique this article.
Re: Coarse is better
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a car crash art?
A drawing/painting of a car crash certainly can be https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can... As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that). And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.
When I was about 12 a car crashed in my quiet street (somebody tried to drive it through a concrete fence), so the next day I sat in the street and did an ink drawing of the wreckage with a mapping pen nib. That was excellent art. Then I stole one of the gigantic suspension springs and took it home to use as a stool, which by some silly definitions was also an act of art. But this all evades the original question about whether the actual car crash is art for evoking feelings, or whether art in fact must involve pictures, or human communication, or what. It's one of the impossible definitions, along with "intelligence" and "freedom". I'm a fan of "I know it when I see it".
Re: Coarse is better
#39Just fucking by canvas, brushes and good quality oil paint. You need only five colours[1]. Cost you maybe 50-80 euros. And any mess you produce will give you more joy thanand shot produced by any clanker brain. Keep at it for few years, take evening classrs, look tutorials and you have learned yourself a skill. You can now travel to any majos art museum across the world and have a discussion with masters through their works hanging on the wall.
And you will also see how fucking sad and inferior all these ai images are. Really, trust me, please. There is more to art than this. There is more to life.
Re: Coarse is better
#40The OP would likely prefer Disco Diffusion if they want their art to remain coarse. Modern models possess advanced spatial understanding and adhere strictly to prompts, whereas the OP is using unstructured inputs better suited for older models with CLIP or T5 encoders that lack that spatial awareness. These legacy prompting styles are incompatible with Gen3 models that utilize VLMs as text encoders. If the OP wants to explore modern architecture, they should use Flux.2 with a LoRA or perhaps a coarser model like Zit if they prefer to rely solely on text conditioning. Nano Banana Pro requires extremely long and distinctive prompting to achieve specific aesthetics. His blog post shows a lack of understanding and a lack of adaption to modern architecture which would be fine if it wasn't that dismissive.
Here is an image from NBP with an adapted prompt for Italian futurism: https://imgur.com/a/4pN0I0R
and for Kowloon: