Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
If a computer auto generating music isn’t called a musician, or a robot tossing a football isn’t called an athlete, then a person making a picture with a computer isn’t an artist. No matter how badly that person wants to be called one.
Depends on the workflow, in my opinion. There are people who just type “1girl lol” into a text box and there are some people who set up workflows with hundreds of steps including significant manual work done in Photoshop or GIMP.
Similarly nearly all music these days is made with a DAW, which enables you to selectively edit and combine performances that otherwise you wouldn’t be able to achieve. Drummer off beat? Quantize it. Want a string section but don’t know how to play violin? Use a synth. And certainly there are people who are overly reliant on those tools because their core music abilities aren’t very strong.
If you think any amount of computer assistance means that something isn’t art, then basically all music made since the 90s would also not be art. It’s not a binary. Any tool can be used tastefully or be used to mask an underlying lack of talent.
You don’t usually call the audio engineer a musician though. The fact that you “want a string section” is the important part. Art is communication, if you fuck with the AI until it communicates what you want, that can be art, as long as you’re not trying to pass off that the fake brushstrokes contain any meaning. If you learn all the right prompt words to make it “good” and then Photoshop it to fix all the telltale AI glitches but the only idea being communicated comes from 6 random people on Deviantart smashed together, that’s not art.
Computer assisted ≠ computer generated. This is a fundamentally understood distinction.
I’d welcome you to offer a rigorous definition of this supposedly well-known distinction. Computers don’t generate anything spontaneously. They always require some level of direction.
Are the outputs of VSTs not “computer generated”? You can fumble around on a keyboard just moving up and down until you find the pitch you want, and the software will output an orchestral swell of dozens of instruments that take years and years to master, with none of that effort expended by the one mashing the keyboard.
Is that sound computer-assisted or computer-generated in your estimation? Much the same with AI images. It’s not fundamentally different from any other computerized tool.
Again, ASSISTED ≠ CREATED. I don’t know how this is difficult for you.
Assisted requires foreknowledge of skill/talent. Like a guitarist using an effect pedal to enhance his sound.
Created leans entirely on the hardware/software combo to do the heavy lifting.
It take ZERO skill to type a sentence into a computer to generate an image. Period. And of argument. I’m sorry this others you; but this is how I see it.
I said in my original post that just typing a prompt isn’t an example of skill. I stated that there are people who use both AI and non-AI tools in complex workflows that include a ton of manual work, and in those cases it’s disingenuous to write off the process as not being creative.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing against, but it isn’t the position I took. Seems like a reading comprehension issue.
My point is that AI generated pictures aren’t art. Period.
I’m not arguing nuance. My opinion is across the board- no nuance. No argument… it’s not art.
Would you call a person that creates paintings by cutting images from magazines an artist?
What if the person cuts the images from AI generated content?
That’s pretty reductive and bad comparison. Your example boils down to saying that you could argue guitarist is a machine assisted.
If you use commands to tell an AI to make a piece of art, you’re somewhere between a programmer and a manager I think.
How does this argument not also apply to photography? A modern camera is a computer, you fiddle with the settings, press a button and it automatically makes a picture for you. People produce billions of shitty photographs a day which aren’t art, but that doesn’t mean someone working in photography as a medium can’t be an artist.
In my experience it’s only non-artists who make this argument, because in their heads they’re comparing AI to painting. But for visual artists there are tons of mediums and disciplines where you don’t physically make the marks yourself and it’s the concept and composition that’s important.
There was an exhibition of AI generated art at the big local gallery here last year and I expected artist friends to be against it, but they were just like “oh, that’s interesting”. They just see AI generation as another way of creating an image and whether a particular image is or isn’t art depends on the intention not the process.
In the hands of someone that doesn’t know what they’re doing, a camera is useless. Any one can make a computer create an image. All it takes is being able to complete a descriptive sentence.
It’s an unskilled task. It’s not art.
Taking medium into account changes everything. A sculpture artist or painter doesn’t have the same interest or concern about AI art yet, and may never. They also tend to not have the same comprehensive view of AI generation as well as training data.
That being said, digital photography doesn’t remotely compare. If I were to set my DSLR up with a lens, set an F stop and shutter speed, the results would be similar to that of a film camera. A sensor takes in light in the same way film does. A 30 second exposure at a 500 ISO will compare to a 30 second camera on a certain film type, which is comparable to ISO settings.
Artificially bumping up light sensitivity on a DSLR degrades image quality. Analog and digital are largely comparable. So how would it apply to photography? It’s not just automatically making a picture, and if it were doing that on auto, it’s still not all that different from a film photo with generic catch all sensors and light metering.
Photography is all about catching the moment, personally I captured night landscapes via manual long exposure on a DSLR, but none of that is automatic.
I just call the people in my Discord who generate AI images AI Handlers because to me it’s like getting a half trained unruly animal to do what you want. That being said when they take requests for character art for tabletop games they put out some good stuff. It’s just a tool to be used and it often takes an experienced handler to get what you want out of it.
I’d be perfectly fine being called an AI Handler over an artist, its an apt descriptor and I’m not doing this to trick anybody. One of the top posts on all today is about true luxuries, and one of them is the Luxury of being able to fully express ones self, to which this new tool has provided to me faaar more than any tool previous. If I’m sharing my creations its because I’m excited to have a visual representation and I want to share it with those interested, I’m not trying to downplay the skillset of other artists, nor do I care about cred. I’m just excited to finally have an outlet for my creativity that doesnt require me to devote years of my life to learning specific skills before I’m able to start doing what I actually want to do, which is to be creative
I don’t really think you’re expressing much of yourself with an AI, especially creativity. I mean all the power to you if you think so, but you can’t really claim to be anything more than a slightly less cumbersome Google image search bot.
Basically you give “search terms” and then use your judgement to pick and choose. There’s very little expression and a whole lot curating of someone else’s work. I guess if you think making music playlist is an expression of creativity, sure it’ll qualify. But that’s some shallow expression of a personality when it comes to art. Might want to phrase that differently.
Lmao, I could’t give less of a shit what you think about my own feelings of creative expression. Have a nice day!
Ok so edm and electronic music isn’t music…ok buddy. Nice definition.
AI that generates music and humans producing electronic music / EDM have nothing in common.
Funny, just this morning I woke up to someone commenting on one of my pieces of art that I’d posted on Reddit that if I hadn’t put in the comment how I did it, they’d have thought it was an AI generated picture.
It’s super-painful to be a technologist and an artist at the same time right now because there are way too many people in tech who have no understanding of what it means to create art. There’s people in the art community who don’t really get AI either, of course, but since they are trending towards probably the right opinion based on an incomplete understanding of what the things we see as AI actually are, it’s much easier to listen to them. If anything, the artists can labor under the misapprehension that the current crop of AI tools are doing more than they actually are.
In the golden age of analog photography, people would do a print and include the raw borders of the image. So you’d see sprocket holes if it’s 35mm film or a variety of rough boundaries for other film formats. And it was a known artistic convention that you were showing exactly what you shot, no cropping, no edits, etc. The early first version of Instagram decided that those film borders meant “art” so of course they added the fake film borders and it grated on my nerves because I think it was the edges from a roll of Velvia, which is a brilliant color slide film. And then someone would have the photo with the B&W filter because that also means “art” but you would never see a B&W Velvia shot unless you were working really hard on a thing. So this is far from the first time that a bunch of clueless people on the tech side of the fence did something silly out of ego and ignorance.
The picture I posted is the result of a bunch of work on fabbing, 3D printing, FastLED programming, photographic technique, providing an interesting concept to a person and an existing body of work such that said person would want to show up to some random eccentric’s place for a shoot, et al. And, well… captions on art exist for a reason, right? It adds layers to the work to know that the artist was half-mad when they painted it and maybe you can tell by the painting’s brushwork or just know your art history really well but maybe you can’t and so a caption helps create context for people not skilled in that particular art.
And, there’s not really “secrets” in art. Lots of curators and art critics will take great pains to explain why Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko so if you are still wandering around saying “BUT IT LOOKS LIKE GIANT SQUARES” that’s intentional ignorance.
Now, I’ve been exploring my particular weird genre of art for a while now. Before AI, Photoshop was the thing. Much in the same way as I could have thrown a long enough prompt into a spicy-autocomplete image generator, I also could have probably photoshopped it. Then again, the tutorials for the Photoshop version of the technique all refer back to the actual photographic effect.
Describing something as it’s not has long been a violation of social norms that people who are stuck in a world of intentional ignorance, ego, and disrespect for the artistic process have engaged in. In the simultaneous heyday of Second Life and Flickr, people wanting to treat their Second Life as their primary life caused Flickr to create features so people could mediate this boundary. So, on one level, this isn’t entirely new and posting AI art in the painting reddit is no different from posting filtered Second Life to the portrait group on flickr. It’s simple rudeness of the sort that the unglamorous aspects of community moderation are there to solve for.
I have gotten quizzed about how I make my art, but I’ve never seen anybody go off and then create a replica of my art, they’ve always gone off and created something new and novel and interesting and you might not even realize that what got them there was tricks I shared with them it’s so different. Artists don’t see other art in the gallery and autocomplete art that looks like what they saw, they incorporate ideas into their own work with their own flair.
Thus, there’s more going on than just mere rudeness. I’ve been doing this for a long time now and the AI companies have a habit of misrepresenting exactly what content they have stolen to train their image models. So it’s entirely likely that the cool AI picture that someone thinks my art looks like is really just autocompleted using parts of my art. Except I can’t say “no” and if there was a market for people making art that looks roughly like mine, I’d offer paid workshops or something.
Well now I want to see some of your work. It sounds interesting as hell
Well, the photo in question is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/53570370332/
Not to be off topic… but… Your username… wirehead… its dark and disturbing and absolutely i love it!
We, the people who all roughly simultaneously chose the same name at roughly the same time only to engage in endless wars over who gets it on a new site, actually exist in a diverse multi-gendered animal-loving book-reading population, of which I am only one example, merely the member of our tribe who happened to nab it here. I’ve actually talked with other Wireheads and the similarities are interesting.
All I know is that it somehow appeared in my brain before I read the Niven book that introduced it to me. And, also, at this point in history, I find Niven and many people who operated in his orbit deeply disgusting and disturbing examples of humanity, so it’s good that I came up with it on my own.
Which is funny cuz I’ve seen better ai art generated in 10 min on my laptop via CPU trained ai. Why is your photo you generated any more valid than the pic I generated? It isn’t. We both did the same thing. We used a machine to make art.
You’re really just pissed because mines better.
Also only llms are trained on web content and it is not stealing under any definition of the word. Their AI just looked at work presented online for free like any other not or user. None of that is illegal. Using the training data to recreate similar works is also not illegal as of right now.
Asking a computer to create an image is fundamentally different from constructing a scene and photographing it. One is using a machine, skill, talent and creativity to create art. The other is having a machine generate art for you.
If you think this debate is about which one is “better” you have fundamentally missed the point. Disregarding the AI aspect entirely, art is subjective. “Better” is completely meaningless in that context. Is it more technically proficient? Better composed? Even if answers match, it could be for entirely different reasons between people. And then there are people who will disagree entirely. There is no objective measure. So then, what is the point of art?
It’s different for everyone, and it just so happens that a significant portion find AI generated compositions hollow on top of being unethical.
Do you think art is maybe more about the process of creating and physically manifesting your thoughts and emotions? Like maybe art isn’t just about the end product but the joy of creation?
people forget that what makes art impressive is also the skill of the artist in the respective medium
if someone creates a perfect color gradient fill in Photoshop nobody is going to be impressed but make it with colored pencils and people may regard it as stunning
the beauty is also in the effort it took to create, not only in what the result looks like - i don’t need to take time to look at stuff people didn’t take time to make
if someone creates a perfect color gradient fill in Photoshop nobody is going to be impressed but make it with colored pencils and people may regard it as stunning
Funnily enough, that was what Mark Rothko was doing with paint. Exploring color to get the perfect shade of something. Looking at color at its most basic. That’s why those of us who understand what Rothko was going for often really love his paintings while most other people say, “I don’t get it, it’s just rectangles.”
Oh I do get it but it’s still just rectangles. If the only people who like your stuff are other painters, not other artists in general but other painters, then I think it’s fair to say that what you’re doing is 99.99% craft and maybe 0.01% art.
That kind of stuff also exists in an AI context, btw, people doing things for the heck of getting it to work and showing off technical aspects. Like absolutely a milestone when it comes to video2video, absolutely at a stage where it’s usable for artistic expression if you’re willing to work within some limitations, though the video here is much more dicking around than art. You’ll also find gazillions of AIified tiktok dances from the same crowd as tracking limbs isn’t exactly trivial.
If you read this thread closely, the problem isn’t AI, it’s capitalism and its extractive design.
AI art is, by very definition, average.
It’s the best fit line. It’s the most common. The mean or the median.
The best art is exceptional.
Wow this really succinctly describes what I feel whenever I see AI art. It’s just an overwhelming feeling of indifference.
Average AI art is average. Exceptional AI art is exceptional.
People who use AI as the tool it is, rather than just feeding it a single prompt and taking a few good results, can make art just like any other artist using a tool. Some of that art is exceptional. Most of it is average. Just like any other tool.
The best AI art is often the result of multiple passes with inpainting and refining, and touchups in other tools. But that takes time, effort, and skill. Just like any other tool.
I fully agree with you. However, there’s no point bringing it up here in this echo chamber of luddites. They’re deathly afraid of ai (for no real reason), and it really shows.
I’m not afraid of AI and I’m certainly not a luddite my friend. I used to lecture about technology in art on several university courses.
I’ve used algorithms to generate work that has been shown on an international stage, and used computers to run massive participatory art shows.
I currently work in publishing, and I can’t express how much AI has already impacted the landscape through generative text. It doesn’t compete with traditional authors, it just smothers them through sheer volume. It clogs up submission processes and it fills open calls… And nearly every one using generative methods thinks they should be called an “author” just because they put a few words into a prompt.
There really is a reason I hold this point if view and it is based on experience and education as well as being part of an industry that this is already having an impact on.
If you want me to take you seriously, I’m going to need some real discussion around the firm that goes beyond name calling and vague statements.
I honestly don’t give a fuck whether you take me seriously or not. As a luddite and technophobe, your opinion means less than nothing to me.
Doesn’t change the fact that you’re afraid of AI though. It is gonna change things, and just because you’re afraid of it isn’t going to stop it. I suggest you learn to adapt.
Bet you are into NFTs too, huh?
Not really. Were you?
Nah this is just an epidemic of lazy people who want the credit of being called an artist without putting in any of the work.
Nah its an epidemic of cowards who are afraid of things they don’t understand. Here’s some advice. Educate yourself, and maybe try to understand things before making stupid statements.
LMFAO “uhm ackshually guys AI art takes skill just like human art”
yeah bud, spending 30 minutes typing sentences into the artist crushing machine is grueling work
That’s not how most people using it creatively are doing it though, have you seen the actual workflows people use? Inpainting and stuff, it can be just as involved as collage or other artforms.
Typically, I don’t find anything offensive about the images ai creates. What I do take issue with is the outlandish claims of artistic ownership because they strung some words together.
Theres a lot of nuance that exists here.
There are many consumer apps based on stable diffusion where people just type what they want “astronaut sitting on a horse” most work is below the hud and therefor i agree with your sentiment, asking something isn’t a creative process. The results is usually decent but rarely amazing but anyone can recreate it with the right prompt and seed
But things change quickly when you use proper tools like comfyui where you get full control of what the tech can do. Not all models play well with plain descriptions and prompts start to resemble a lengthy magical spell of keywords that become unreadable to a human being. Some keywords perform consistently but are highly counter-intuitive but they only work with some models and settings.
Then there are all the modifiers that change the weights and interpretation of the prompt, latent information, customize noise generations. Mix/matching multiples models iterating on the same picture, using custom or native vae, clip skip 0, 1 or 2…
During the process of changing things the results are usually utter crap but the more you understand what your doing the closer you will get to a workflow that can consistently output good images.
A last step is taking the parameters/seed that generated best pictures from a batch and editing the prompt/settings further to fix the last details.
The process is a creative one and the result is impossible to recreate without someone knowing exactly all the steps involved so here i would say artistic ownership can be applied.
Agreed. Consider this absolutely batshit take from the reddit post linked in the article.
Your art looks pretty good, so most people wouldn’t be able to tell it’s AI unless you told them it’s AI.
Generally it’s always best to just lie and tell everyone you made it yourself, just to avoid all the toxic people that hate AI, because not having to read hateful comments from people like that is reason enough to lie. Don’t need to provide any evidence or go into details, just tell everyone you made it yourself and ignore anyone that question it.
“Your art”. I’m sure clicking the “regenerate” button on mid journey for 5 hours took lots of work. It’s hard not to feel real hate for these people.
you’re all hung up on ownership. IP is completely a result of capitalism. no one would care who used their images if we weren’t all struggling to survive in a post scarcity world. the problem isn’t AI, it’s the people that own this shit and insist that the world cling to these outdated ideas of ownership. I use AI in my art all the time. I’m an artist with 40 years of experience. I have no problem with it.
Quit bitching about AI and start dismantling capitalism (by any means necessary).
One of the saddest things I’ve seen on Lemmy is that while people here generally have sensible left wing opinions on things (the tankies aside), as soon as AI is brought up in any context most of the users seem to transform in to pearl clutching petite bourgeoisie.
What is bourgeoisie about being against AI art?
The bit where people all of a sudden become obsessed with owning intellectual property and generating passive income from it (royalties) and value people being able to monetise cultural artefacts rather than allow them to contribute to the common good.
The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists who are already struggling financially and most are definitely not making any money from royalties. They very often post their art in public spaces where they are free to view, or in Pateron for a few bucks a month. Certainly the outcry is against all of those public (but still copyrighted) works that were used to train models.
The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists
I’m not sure that’s true unless Lemmy has an incredibly strange community of whom a significant proportion are tech focused professional artists. But regardless the point I’m making is more about the mindset where people become vociferous defenders of an unjust system that benefits large corporations because they are fighting for the few scraps that they get out of it, rather than considering alternatives.
“I feel like a lot of the anti-AI people just… want there to be less beautiful art in the world,” one Redditor replied in the same thread.
The beauty of, what, mutations caused by a nuclear accident?
This was the craziest quote to me:
“I hope someday being anti-AI is seen as ableist,” another mused.
WHAT.
Just…FUCKIN WHAT.
IMO I’d call “AI Artists” a type of Art Director, since they themselves don’t make the art but instead direct and dictate what exactly they want, and if the result is different they tweak their wording to direct the art into a different direction
Art Directing, whether for a human or a machine or otherwise, is still a skill itself and still has to be learned to get good results, but it’s distinctly different from making the art yourself so I wouldn’t call them “Artists” outright
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I like AI art. It can be fun and interesting, I play around with a couple engines myself. I occasionally use the imagery to kick-start my imagination or as inspiration for things I might be working on or thinking about. It’s useful to give your brain a “starting point.”
What I don’t like is people trying to pass off AI computer generated images as some form of accomplishment for themselves (excluding working out a good prompt or modifiers, that can be a bit of work) or trying to pass off the imagery as real in any way. Real IRL or like “I painted this.”
As far as the corporate models scraping content…yeah, they are definitely playing the usual game that it’s ok for them to fuck over the little guy but heaven help you if you’re a day late with a payment to them or torrent a movie.
Art is a key branch of human endeavour that can be described as “the study of choice”. That’s what so many people misunderstand in modern art, is that it’s often more focused on the choices themselves rather than trying to be a skillful representation or depiction of some kind. “That’s just a ___, my kid could do that.”
What is missing from every conversation about AI art is what contribution to “the study of choice” can be made here. There are a thousand variables in the choices made along the way, from which AI and training data was used, to the myriad of prompts used. I am certain that if you were thoughtfully making these choices along the way with a clear idea in mind, you’d be able to make incredibly impactful art that actually enriches us in the usual sense that good art can.
My complaint about AI here, if we will set the enormous scale of theft to one side, is simply that it is being used to create art that doesn’t mean anything, which is inimical to the pursuit of art itself.
My complaint about AI here, if we will set the enormous scale of theft to one side, is simply that it is being used to create art that doesn’t mean anything, which is inimical to the pursuit of art itself.
Thank you.
The meaninglessness and soulelessness is a big part of the problem with AI art.
It has no more “point of view” than a random number generator.
People who are scared of ai art would also be scared of cameras in their inception.
Human art will prevail.
let us look at music.
real art = zero to none listeners
popmusic = ppl love it
from what i understand most humans like popular things so they can align with a herd.
while artists will keep making art, ppl will keep ignoring it.
You’ve decided all popular music is bad and only the obscure stuff you listen to is art? And you expect me to take you seriously?
if you had any concept of music history you’d know they said that about all the music you think is worthy, Dylan almost had his show ended by an axe wielding Pete Seeger because he played a new fangled electric guitar and Pete thought that meant it wasn’t real music.
Art it’s the same, cezanne got endless hate for not doing real art, and literature Shakespeare wasn’t a real writer because he didn’t know enough Greek…
You’re just filling the role of antiquated gate keeper in a drama that’s played out a billion times with your side losing every single time. Good luck though I guess?
The anti AI movement is so interesting. Its what I imagine how people would have imagined other progress like the printing press
The analogy doesn’t work. The difference is that this “printing press” is stealing massive amounts of creative work and calling it its own, and using massive amounts of energy to do so.
You talking about humans or AI?
I’m talking about AI. However, the statement I made wasn’t very well informed. Others have shared with me how the printing press did indeed give rise to fears about piracy, and create entirely new discussions & problems related to intellectual property.
Kinda off topic, but I love Lemmy. How many more people actually think about what they say here. Refreshing compared to a lot of other social media. Anyway thanks for listening to others point of views.
It’s also why I love it here. Actual discourse without (much) shouting mindlessly at each other.
AI art is like the speech synthesiser that came with Amiga’s Workbench. Amusing for yourself to make it say swears, but of no interest to anyone else.
I think there are interesting aspects of AI art. It takes a real artist to properly instruct an AI to create something new, different, and interesting. When I think of modern art, a lot of art snobs were dismissive of it because “it’s not art.” I think we will see the same opinions of AI art change as new, different, and interesting artwork is made.
Thing is, generated art is not new or different. It’s a machine amalgamation of existing works. The only vaguely interesting bits are how it mangles body parts into some kind of Cronenberg horror.
Humans certainly don’t make new things out of nothing. They also take from different sources and combine them together to make something new, whether that’s direct inspiration or on a more abstract level through the brain.
Learning models aren’t generating art any more than GIMP or Photoshop is. It’s the person behind the tool that makes the art, not the tool. There’s certainly an art to prompt smithing.
I feel like a lot of people dismiss generated art simply because it’s new (and because as a byproduct is spits out dozens of junk pieces before getting anywhere good). I don’t see how it’s that different from someone using photo-editing software built with dozens of algorithms instead of a ‘pure’ drawing pad, or someone using a drawing pad instead of a pencil, or someone using a pencil instead of chalk. It’s a tool, and a great one at that in comparison to many digital tools for artists.
People dismiss AI art because they (correctly) see that it requires zero skill to make compared to actual art, and it has all the novelty of a block of Velveeta.
If AI is no more a tool than Photoshop, go and make something in GIMP, or photoshop, or any of the dozens of drawing/art programs, from scratch. I’ll wait.
Then those same people will also dismiss bananas taped to the wall for requiring “zero skill” and thus out themselves as having no idea what art actually is.
Different kind of art.
Art is art, no matter the medium or author. City bureaucrats building a parking lot, and only a parking lot and not commissioning an admonishing memorial or something, can be art if it’s at the place of Hitler’s bunker.
Yeah no one will ever have any use for synthesized voice. It’s like the drum machine, just a silly gadget which will never have any impact on music…
Hmmm.
Ai image gen will continue to improve, a kid born today will likely grow in a world where they’re completely used to game render engines using generative ai, where they design complex and beautiful virtual worlds, and where art lessons focus more on design and expression than technical skill (which people interested in will learn with thy help of ai tools).
You’re welcome to feel however you like about new technologies but don’t tattoo your idea that ai image gen is just a fad because it won’t age well.
This needs to change : there is no AI art. Art is something humans do, and AI is something that does not exist.
There cannot be AI art.
Can animals or aliens create art?
“Art is whatever the artist chooses it to be.” And I’d also call art whatever the beholder chooses it to be. If Dog Art is something that exists, AI Art is something that exists.
Whether you think in the case of AI the artist is the LLM or the prompter, that’s irrelevant.
Wow, looks like I have two wildly different options here, such luxury.
C. There is no art
Agi doesn’t exist, saying ai doesn’t exist is like saying physics doesn’t exist because unified field theory isn’t a thing yet.
I’m sorry, I can’t follow a reasoning unless it uses a car analogy. Please rephrase
People talk about A.I. art threatening artist jobs but everything I’ve seen created by A.I. tools is the most absolute dogshit art ever made, counting the stuff they found in Saddam Hussein’s mansions.
So, I would think the theft of IP for training models is the larger objection. No one thinks a Balder’s Gate 3 fan was gonna commission an artist to make a drawing for them. They’re pissed their work was used without permission.
You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.
Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech as a whole are built upon. I am glad to see that the law aligns with these principles and protects our ability to engage openly and without fear of reprisal, which is crucial for fostering a healthy society.
I find myself at odds with the polarized argumentation about AI. If you don’t like it, that’s understandable, but don’t make it so that if someone uses AI, they have to defend themselves from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. Those accusations are often times incorrect or made without substantial evidence.
I’m open to that conversation, as long as we can keep it respectful and productive. Drop a reply if you want, it’s way better than unexplained downvoting.
Yes, using existing works as reference is obviously something that real human artists do all the time, there’s no arguing that is the case. That’s how people learn to create art to begin with.
But, the fact is, generative AI is not creative, nor does it understand what creativity is, nor will it ever. Because all it is doing is performing complex data statistical analysis algorithms to generate a matrix of pixels or a string of words.
Im sorry, but the person entering in the prompt to instruct the algorithm is also not doing anything creative either. Do you think it is art to go through a fast food drive through and place an order? That’s what people are objecting to - people calling themselves artists because they put some nonsense word salad together and then think what they get out of it is some unique thing that they feel they created and take ownership of. If not for the AI model they are using and the creative works it was trained on, they could not have created it or likely even imagined it without it.
People are actively losing their livelihoods because AI tech is being oversold and overhyped as something that it’s not. Execs are all jumping on the bandwagon and because they see AI as something that will save them a bunch of money, they are laying off people they think aren’t needed anymore. So, just try to incorporate that sentiment into your understanding of why people are also upset about AI. You may not be personally affected, but there are countless that are. In fact, over the next two years, as many as 203,000 entertainment workers in the US alone could be affected
You want to have fun creating fancy kitbashed images based off of other people’s work, go right ahead. Just don’t call it art and call yourself an artist, unless you could actually make it yourself using practical skills.
Also, good luck trying to copyright it because guess what, you can’t.
Yes, using existing works as reference is obviously something that real human artists do all the time, there’s no arguing that is the case. That’s how people learn to create art to begin with.
But, the fact is, generative AI is not creative, nor does it understand what creativity is, nor will it ever. Because all it is doing is performing complex data statistical analysis algorithms to generate a matrix of pixels or a string of words.
Im sorry, but the person entering in the prompt to instruct the algorithm is also not doing anything creative either. Do you think it is art to go through a fast food drive through and place an order? That’s what people are objecting to - people calling themselves artists because they put some nonsense word salad together and then think what they get out of it is some unique thing that they feel they created and take ownership of. If not for the AI model they are using and the creative works it was trained on, they could not have created it or likely even imagined it without it.
I’d like to ask you what experience you have with generative art, because I’d like to explain a bit of what I know,
There’s also a spectrum of involvement depending on what tool you’re using. I know with web based interfaces don’t allow for a lot of freedom due to wanting to keep users from generating things outside their terms of use, but with open source models based on Stable Diffusion you can get a lot more involved and get a lot more freedom. We’re in a completely different world from March 2023 as far as generative tools go. Take a quick look at things work.
Let’s take these generation parameters for instance:
sarasf, 1girl, solo, robe, long sleeves, white footwear, smile, wide sleeves, closed mouth, blush, looking at viewer, sitting, tree stump, forest, tree, sky, traditional media, 1990s \(style\), <lora:sarasf_V2-10:0.7>Negative prompt: (worst quality, low quality:1.4), FastNegativeV2Steps: 21, VAE: kl-f8-anime2.ckpt, Size: 512x768, Seed: 2303584416, Model: Based64mix-V3-Pruned, Version: v1.6.0, Sampler: DPM++ 2M Karras, VAE hash: df3c506e51, CFG scale: 6, Clip skip: 2, Model hash: 98a1428d4c, Hires steps: 16, "sarasf_V2-10: 1ca692d73fb1", Hires upscale: 2, Hires upscaler: 4x_foolhardy_Remacri, "FastNegativeV2: a7465e7cc2a2",ADetailer model: face_yolov8n.pt, ADetailer version: 23.11.1, Denoising strength: 0.38, ADetailer mask blur: 4, ADetailer model 2nd: Eyes.pt, ADetailer confidence: 0.3, ADetailer dilate erode: 4, ADetailer mask blur 2nd: 4, ADetailer confidence 2nd: 0.3, ADetailer inpaint padding: 32, ADetailer dilate erode 2nd: 4, ADetailer denoising strength: 0.42, ADetailer inpaint only masked: True, ADetailer inpaint padding 2nd: 32, ADetailer denoising strength 2nd: 0.43, ADetailer inpaint only masked 2nd: TrueTo break down a bit of what’s going on here, I’d like to explain some of the elements found here.
sarasfis the token for the LoRA of the character in this image, and<lora:sarasf_V2-10:0.7>is the character LoRA for Sarah from Shining Force II. LoRA are like supplementary models you use on top of a base model to capture a style or concept, like a patch. Some LoRA don’t have activation tokens, and some with them can be used without their token to get different results.The 0.7 in
<lora:sarasf_V2-10:0.7>refers to the strength at which the weights from the LoRA are applied to the output. Lowering the number causes the concept to manifest weaker in the output. You can blend styles this way with just the base model or multiple LoRA at the same time at different strengths. Furthurmore you can adjust the UNet and Text Encoder by adding another colon like so :<lora:sarasf_V2-10:1:0.7>for even more varied results. Doing this allows you to separate the “idea” from the “look” of the LoRA. You can even use a monochrome LoRA and take the weight into the negative to get some crazy colors.The Negative Prompt is where you include things you don’t want in your image.
(worst quality, low quality:1.4),here are quality tags and have their attention set to 1.4. Attention is sort of like weight, but for tokens. LoRA bring their own weights to add onto the model, whereas attention on tokens works completely inside the weights they’re given. In this negative promptFastNegativeV2is an embedding known as a Textual Inversion. It’s sort of like a crystallized collection of tokens that tell the model something precise you want without having to enter the tokens yourself or mess around with the attention manually. Embeddings you put in the negative prompt are known as Negative Embeddings.In the next part,
Stepsstands for how many steps you want the model to take to solve the starting noise into an image. More steps take longer.VAEis the name of the Variational Autoencoder used in this generation. The VAE is responsible for working with the weights to make each image unique. A mismatch of VAE and model can yield blurry and desaturated images, so some models opt to have their VAE baked in,Sizeare the dimensions in pixels the image will be generated at.Seedis the number representation of the starting noise for the image. You need this to be able to reproduce a specific image.Modelis the name of the model used, andSampleris the name of the algorithm that solves the noise into an image. There are a few different samplers, also known as schedulers, each with their own trade-offs for speed, quality, and memory usage.CFGis basically how close you want the model to follow your prompt. Some models can’t handle high CFG values and flip out, giving over-exposed or nonsense output.Hires stepsrepresents the amount of steps you want to take on the second pass to upscale the output. This is necessary to get higher resolution images without visual artifacts.Hires upscaleris the name of the model that was used during the upscaling step, and again there are a ton of those with their own trade-offs and use cases.After
ADetailerare the parameters for Adetailer, an extension that does a post-process pass to fix things like broken anatomy, faces, and hands. We’ll just leave it at that because I don’t feel like explaining all the different settings found there.
https://youtu.be/-JQDtzSaAuA?t=97
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtbEuERXSqk
Not all selfies are art, but you can make art with cameras. I think the same applies here.
People are actively losing their livelihoods because AI tech is being oversold and overhyped as something that it’s not. Execs are all jumping on the bandwagon and because they see AI as something that will save them a bunch of money, they are laying off people they think aren’t needed anymore. So, just try to incorporate that sentiment into your understanding of why people are also upset about AI. You may not be personally affected, but there are countless that are. In fact, over the next two years, as many as 203,000 entertainment workers in the US alone could be affected
This EFF article by Katharine Trendacosta and Cory Doctorow touches on this. I think it’s worth a read.
You want to have fun creating fancy kitbashed images based off of other people’s work, go right ahead.
This is misinformation, and not how the technology works. Here’s a quick video explanation,
Just don’t call it art and call yourself an artist, unless you could actually make it yourself using practical skills.
This is just snobbery that people have always used to devalue the efforts of others. Punching down and gatekeeping won’t solve your problems, the people you’re really mad at are above you.
Art is about bringing your ideas into the world, anything beyond that is fetish. Spending hundreds of hours learning a skill isn’t art, it’s work. While I believe the effort invested in a work can contribute to its depth and meaning, that doesn’t make them better than works without as much effort.
cont.
I appreciate that you taken time to explain the technical aspects into what generative AI is processing under the hood, but the reality is that no amount of programming will ever be able to recreate the uniqueness and infinite variability of human creativity, emotion, imagination or consciousness. There is an immeasurable difference between true creativity and producing variations on a data set. I say this as both an artist and a programmer. I’m not just talking out of my ass.
I agree with you that a goal of art is to express ideas and that there’s are a lot of people in the art world that fetishize art in to being something more important than it is in certain contexts, but art is also a core component and something unique to humanity(and sometimes even to other species.) In that way, it’s something to be cherish and regarded - and throughout history it has been extremely culturally significant. Trying to translate these concepts into an algorithm, in my mind, nothing but an extremely arrogant waste of effort and time. Why not spend your time automating the boring shit no one wants to do rather than the creative things people actually enjoy doing?
I am not gatekeeping. I am just stating simple facts. I find it offensive and demeaning that you are devaluing the immense amount of effort that artists undergo to hone their crafts and produce art. You’re damn right it’s work - if you want to get proficient at something, that’s what it takes. I don’t care how boomer-ey that sounds. Yes, some artists have natural talent and don’t need as much effort as others. But, nonetheless, effort is required to create. Anyone can create art, not just some elite select few. But, not everyone can create art that is universally recognized as great or masterful, and it’s not a problem that need to be solved by technology. Unfortunately, art is subjective, so not everything one creates is perceived the same. That’s why some are more successful than others. You may argue that AI levels the playing field, but the fact is that it leverages the work of “successful” artists or artworks, and generates results that are perceived as successful or appealing as a result. It’s a shortcut. You are bypassing the effort otherwise needed by using a tool, which allows most users to to be totally ignorant of the basic knowledge required to create an art work - shape language, color theory, composition, lighting, appeal, posing, etc.
Entering a prompt into an AI model is akin to directing, producing or acting as a muse. It’s a very similar argument as to the validity or artistic merits of factory artists like Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons - While you are responsible for the idea that produces a result, you are still relying on the work and effort of not only the numerous team of people creating the AI model and its algorithms , but also the immeasurable amount of man-hours and creativity involved in creating the source content for the model training materials.
It’s one thing to use generative AI as tool, with intent to make use of the output as reference for your own work in a larger context. But to take the direct output and call it art is morally and ethically wrong. In my eyes, it makes you look like a total hack who doesn’t want to put the effort in to make things for themselves…no matter how much time you put into coming up with the prompt for the output.
I still stand by my original arguments - coming up with a prompt or a training data set to create an image is not art, because you are not actively involved with the creation of the imagery, itself. What an AI model generates is not a creative work and it is not your creation. If that is offensive to you, there’s nothing I can do about that, because it’s apparent that your arguments only serve to make yourself feel better about using generative AI.
It’s also apparent that you have an extremely skewed view of what art is and what it means to be an artist. Art, at its base level is about expressing HUMAN creativity, not what an algorithm interprets it to be. It’s about making countless, specific choices for each step of the creative process and having complete control of the final outcome. It’s those choices that make your art truly unique and an expression of your creative vision. It doesn’t matter if it is objectively bad or good, just that it came from you, and that every detail, every color, every line, was your choice, not an interpretation of your words.
Unless you are creating your own AI model from scratch and training it purely on your own artworks, I don’t see how you can, in good conscience, claim the results to be your own.
Any one can create art, but an artist is someone who dedicates themselves to their craft, as with any other craftsman. That passion is what separates an artisan from a hobbyist. You may view this as snobbery, but I view it as respect and honoring a tradition that spans all of human kind, back to the earliest cave paintings tens of thousands of years ago. I know my limits and what I’m capable of and I have come to terms with those deficiencies in my work. I’m not delusional enough to think that by generating an image through AI, it somehow makes up for those shortcomings and makes me into something I am not.
Unless you are creating your own AI model from scratch and training it purely on your own artworks, I don’t see how you can, in good conscience, claim the results to be your own.
Did you create all the textures you put onto your 3d models? Did you use substance painter? Any sort of asset library? If you’re working in 2d, did you create your own brush textures?
Did you create colour and perspective theory from scratch? If not, how can you call yourself a painter?
Did Duchamp study the manufacture of ceramics before putting a factory-made urinal on a pedestal and called it a piece of art?
Wow, nice rhetorical questions you got there, bud.
What the fuck do you think?
If you had enough reading comprehension and read through my whole response, you would have got to the part where I said creating art is about the culmination of choices you make in each part of the process.
Maybe you can point it out to me, but I don’t recall the part where I said you have to recreate the fucking wheel every time you create something.
That particular quote you pointed out, was specific to generative AI, because you don’t make those same choices. The model and the training data is what produces those results for you.
But since you asked, yes I do have the knowledge to create textures by hand without Substance Painter. I’ve been doing 3d art since 2003, before that shit even existed and we hand to do it all manually in Photoshop.
No, I didn’t fucking create color and perspective theory. What do you think I am… like a fucking immortal from ancient times? But I did have to learn that shit and took multiple classes dedicated to each of those topics.
Lastly, you must have skipped on your art history for the last one, because the whole concept of that particular piece was that it was absurdist - an every day object raised to status of art by the artist. He didn’t fucking sculpt the urinal himself. So it would have been more appropriate to say he was a janitor that got lucky. Nice try, though.
That particular quote you pointed out, was specific to generative AI, because you don’t make those same choices. The model and the training data is what produces those results for you.
And for a photographer, their surroundings is what produces many results, leading them to not make choices about those things. They focus on other things, don’t express themselves in the arrangement of leaves on a tree, leave that stuff to chance.
The important part is not that choices are made for you, but that you do make, at the very least, a choice. One single choice suffices to have intent. It is not even necessary to make that choice during the creation of the piece, splattering five buckets of paint onto five canvases and choosing the one that sparks the right impression a choice.
because the whole concept of that particular piece was that it was absurdist - an every day object raised to status of art by the artist.
Yes, precisely. That one concept, the single choice, “yep a urinal should be both provocative and banal enough”, is what made it art.
There is no minimum level of craft necessary for art.
I think AI art looks neat
That won’t get you into art school but it also won’t get you kicked out.
*adjusts horn-rims* yesyes very neat do you have anything else to say but that you’re whimsical?
There are so many possibilities for AI art, to say it’s all bad is painting it all with one brush
Pretty sure that artists are pissed because they are gonna lose jobs and money. To which I say we’ll you chose that career path deal with it or go on another career. I hate the argument that AI is stealing art as it’s using existing art to generate other art, oh yeah ? Then what about you, how do you think you get inspired? Oh by looking at other art ? Hmm sounds an awful lot the same to me! Let me put it this way due to AI even I might loose my job in the future but you know what I do to combat that ? I try to learn how to use AI as that’s the skill that will be required in the future!
I feel ya. They complain a lot about something being better than them. Aren’t humans supposed to adapt and overcome or did we forget that skill a long while ago?
Adapt and overcome how? Using AI? By the nature of the matter, less artists will be needed using AI, some will not make it. So, what then? Dropping their artistic career to go carry boxes for Amazon? What a shitty path we are making for humanity if we need to drop careers of passion to do menial jobs.
No, make art for fun and not for money. 😒 Art is for fun and culture, not for profit
I try to learn how to use AI
And exactly which part of this process could not be done by AI too?
Which part will still require hiring a human?
The one where you have to give inputs to it in order to get what you want from it
That will not be a marketable skill, if the intended “customer”, who just wants the end product, can do all of that themselves.
There are already improvements being made in understanding the intent better, which will eventually render all “prompt engineering” unnecessary and obsolete.
The necessity to tweak prompts will be a very short-lived thing from these early days. At best it will give you an extra year or so.
Similarly if you picture yourself as an owner of a company - you cannot sell something to people that they can just make themselves with zero effort required. Especially in an environment with a million competitors. At best your moat could be the network effects of a large user base, but that’s not an easy place to get to.
Really? Are you sure that someone that knows a lot about art can’t create better art with AI then your average Joe ? And are you sure that’s not marketable ? Cause I’m pretty sure I can make a banner or a poster my self for advertising if I wanted to but I still prefer to pay a professional to make it as it will be better! Everything is marketable so don’t give me that. This shit is pretty much the same issue that was created with automatisation when factories started using robots instead of people. It’s inevitable, it’s the future and just like then people will find other jobs!
You are assuming that progress in AI capabilities will stall somewhere close to its present day state. Because today, a professional-made poster will still be better than one you can make yourself. But that won’t be the case forever.
This is more akin to how there used to be elevator operators vs. people just pressing a button themselves, or how people couldn’t easily book their own airline tickets without going through a travel agent, and now they just order them through a website.
Yes, it’s called progress. Some jobs will disappear but others jobs will replace those. The world population is quite bigger then what it was 100 years ago and even thought computers and robots replaced a lot of jobs we still have jobs today as a matter of fact we have more jobs. As someone has to mention and program those robots. Someone has to create programs and games, someone has to mentain the infrastructure. Youtube videos and streaming became a job. Simply put the point I’m trying to make is AI might take away some jobs but it will also open up new jobs opportunities for other people. And no matter how pissed of you are that AI is doing something that you consider wrong and think that only humans should do it you will never be able to stop AI from becoming a thing. There was a lot of push back against automatisation too and that did absolutely nothing and humans got replaced by robots on assembly lines and shit like that.
And no I don’t assume that it will stall, it will evolve but humans will still have to give inputs to AI in order to crate those posters, and we will find more creative ways to give better inputs in order to get better art. Simply put using AI at a professional level will become a skill and a new job. I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t be able to create better AI art the someone that does that everyday as a job. At best I will give some input like make this picture in the style of Picasso or something while someone that studied art will know more art terms and concepts then just make it like Picasso.
As someone has to mention and program those robots.
Why couldn’t an AI do that?
Someone has to create programs and games, someone has to maintain the infrastructure.
Same question.
Youtube videos and streaming became a job.
This will only work because of the parasocial aspect, and there will probably be strong competition from AI there too.
For every thing you imagine, simply ask yourself - will AI be able to do it better?
So far I haven’t heard anything convincing where the answer would be “no”.
This whole “giving inputs” argument is 100% leaning on today’s technological limitations.
With enough advancements, no input you could ever come up with will be able to compete with the automated ones - even if they are working from some very high level goal, like “make something people want” (to give a slightly exaggerated example).
Nobody’s going to pay you to utter the phrase “make something people want” (and it’s not competitive as a business either).
Your comparison of taking inspiration and literally generating something from someone elses image is the most braindead take on ai I’ve read. As a human you can’t replicate someone’s style to the extent that ai does. And if you are drawing from reference and trying to make something as close to the original as possible then it’s normal to give credit (with digital art at least).
Yeah, sure, you can’t replicate someone style to that extent. It not like people made fakes of famous paintings to sell them as originals just because the originals are expensive. Please tell me how humans can’t replicate someone’s style some more!!!
First of all, you can’t make a perfect copy. Second of all, faking paintings and advertising them as original just so happens to be illegal. Can you give me a reason why it should be acceptable when AI does it?
My point is humans do it, and not even AI can do a perfect copy as it is impossible due to how old those paintings are. I never said it should be legal for AI to do that but if you ask AI to do some painting you want but to do it the style that Rembrandt did his painting that’s not illegal that something that people do too and those kind of request are normal for painters so why should AI not be allowed to do it. ?
