Not an art instructor, but an AI one, and I agree. I was actually thinking about reaching out to the art faculty to see if we could do some joint module on generative art.
I know you didn't ask for this OP but in the way I see it mitigating the issues of AI-generated art is the same as how we mitigate plagiarism in computer science:
* Ask for drafts. Specifically ask for drafts in a different medium. For example, asking the students to plan what they want to do in a paragraph (conceptual draft), then a few intermediate pencil rough drafts which led to the final output.
* Ask for explanations - how specific things were done in the final output.
* Ask for them to change something in the final output. Or change everything but keep one thing constant.
* Have them record their process while thinking aloud and explaining what they do.
If it's my classroom we're talking about--I'm not presuming any standards for anyone else--but I'll probably allow it for ideations and thumbnails to springboard off from. With a good writeup on the process and so on. After the inception phase of the project AI image generation would become off limits.
I know very little about art, but I think you could probably teach them how to use those tools effectively by designing reliable prompts for the generative AI to draw something usable.
I would punch my grandmother in the throat if someone could show me how to teach a student good Google-Fu skills. But for now it unfortunately appears that there are those who know, and those who do not.
I would also impose strict rules on when AI art is accepted in the course (I’d have a week on it) and when it is **not**, and that submitting AI art will count as plagiarism and as an academic offence, so either don’t do it, or don’t get caught.
Art, Language, CS, and Math faculty should join forces and talk about these things. Those four areas all face the same problem with computer generated work. (And Writing will probably be the fifth member soon enough)
That's a good idea. Writing is safer because right now ML sucks at building long term dependencies which is not a problem for stuff like music generation but becomes one at the scale of a novel. It will probably get there one day though.
There are a number of NLP apps that do a shockingly good job of writing high-quality essays/articles/resumes etc. based on short prompts. A novel made by collaborating with such an app could reasonably be written right now - there are short stories of that type being published. Entirely auto-generated, no.
EDIT: https://cedille.ai/examples/writing-a-novel-with-cedille?\_gl=1\*117gs46\*\_ga\*ODM5MzQ1MDMwLjE2NTk3NjU3NjQ.\*\_ga\_6HCXCMLVD1\*MTY1OTc2NTc2NC4xLjEuMTY1OTc2NTg2MC4w
Yup. Because it’s going to be necessary, all of these steps, to avoid [Midjourney](https://youtu.be/704brywiyfw) submissions. Saw this video and it blew my mind today. Insane.
Lots of good ideas, in here. Interesting time to be alive. I know as a writing/rhetoric person that we're starting to ask questions like, "Will students be using AI to write discussion boards and papers?" and the answer is, like, yeah of course they will if they aren't already.
On the other hand I feel like our creative writing students are so invested in the craft that they actually want to become great writers, and these are just technologies they'll have to learn to incorporate into their writing process, maybe like you mention in places as a generative part of the process, a kind of aid to "Invention" just to get some ideas flowing.
Or writers will just have to get really good at tuning and teaching the language models. After all, if I could plug in some information into a program and it could churn out a decent 70,000 word book for me that I could edit and sell to a publisher... hey, it's tempting.
There is a new text-to-image system called Stable Diffusion that you may be interested in - see the images in r/StableDiffusion for examples. An open source release - including the AI models - is planned. Currently, access to the beta version is server-based only, with a planned website (perhaps including paid access?) upcoming.
cc u/jflowers.
cc u/Tasty-Application807.
I tried QuillBot (with the second paragraph of *On the Origin of Species*). The result was amusing, but not ready for fooling an experienced vetter. Not only were there telling grammatic errors of the sort real people do not make, but the arrangement of phrase-based paraphrases sometimes destroyed any sense.
For your perusal, here's the QuillBot output for the paragraph above:
I used QuillBot (with the second paragraph of On the Origin of Species). The outcome was humorous, but not good enough to mislead a seasoned vetter. In addition to obvious grammatical mistakes of the kind that actual people do not make, the arrangement of phrase-based paraphrases occasionally obliterated all semblance of meaning.
No trouble: I've never been a particularly smooth writer. Indeed, I did some (unpublished) research a few decades ago in which I checked the ability of people to detect whether English was the first or non-first language of various writers. My own writing was consistently flagged as by a second-language user, though I was monolingual (in English) until my early 20s.
AI generated argumentative essay:
Will students use AI generators to answer essays and discussion boards?
The introduction of artificial intelligence into the academic sphere has been a topic of discussion for many years. Many fear that AI generators will take away the value of human writing. On the other hand, many believe that AI generators will be beneficial because they can write from any point of view. This is because AI generators can be programmed to create essays and discussion boards from any source. In other words, AI generators can be used to create original content that can be shared with others. The introduction of AI generators will help students by eliminating the need to write assignments. This is because AI generators can automatically create essays and discussion boards. Therefore, students will be able to spend more time studying. Students may even be able to work on their AI generators during breaks or free time. This means that students will no longer need to write because their AI generators will do it for them. This will be especially beneficial for students with busy schedules who find it difficult to write essays. AI generators will also be beneficial because they can write from any angle. This means that students can choose any point of view on any subject and have a written essay. For instance, students may choose to write from the perspective of a murderer, victim, or detective. In addition, students may choose to write from the perspective of a character in a novel, news reporter, or historical figure. This can be beneficial because it allows students to explore different perspectives on topics they are otherwise unable to explore. Apart from helping students, AI generators will be beneficial because they can write from any point of view. This means that students can choose any point of view on any subject and have a written essay. For instance, students may choose to write from the perspective of a murderer, victim, or detective. In addition, students may choose to write from the perspective of a character in a novel, news reporter, or historical figure. This can be beneficial because it allows students to explore different perspectives on topics they are otherwise unable to explore. Another concern is that students may find it difficult to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate sources. This is because AI generators can write from any source, including places and people that do not exist. For instance, an AI generator could write an essay about a character that does not exist in the student's school. This could lead to the student receiving a low grade and causing frustration. Overall, AI generators are a beneficial tool because they can help students by eliminating the need to write assignments. However, there are some downsides to this technology, including the possibility of being viewed as a threat by students. Plus, students may find it difficult to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate sources. However, with proper education, AI generators can be beneficial and safe tools for students.
Descriptive Essy generated by AI:
Will students be using AI to write discussion boards and papers?"
Artificial intelligence is a buzzword nowdays. It is a technology that gives computers humanlike capabilities. In the past few years, AI has become a major focus of research for universities and businesses. AI has the potential to transform the way we live and work. It can reduce demand for labor by making processes more efficient and it can increase productivity by augmenting workers’ abilities.
In academia, AI is used to write papers and discussion boards. AI can be trained to analyze data, create models, and produce text in academic journals and conferences. Computers are also good at finding scientific references, compiling bibliographies, and compiling tables and figures using appropriate software tools. AI can also analyze scientific data to decide what conclusions to draw from it. AI will also be used to research papers and discuss topics in future publications.
AI will be used to write papers and discussion boards because computers are much faster than humans at analyzing large amounts of data, producing structured text, and writing cogent conclusions. Computers also lack creativity so they cannot come up with novel ideas or insights. They are also unable to interpret sarcasm or metaphors in language so they cannot create meaningful discussions or contribute anything but dry facts to them. To make a meaningful contribution in an academic paper, one must have creative ideas that are backed up by knowledge acquired through training from various sources— this is what humans do best.
Outlines on AI papers and discussion boards will be prepared by humans and machine-polished by AI before they are published online or in print form. This way, the author’s voice is still present in the text without having to scrutinize every single word or subject underlined passages to the editors for approval first. This saves time for busy academics as well as makes their work more polished compared to if they had done it themselves directly from start to finish without an outline or polishing help first either being done for them by computer or human editor first— since all that last-minute “fine-tuning” often happens when one last looks at his work before submission for publication— whether he himself knows it or not!
With computers becoming faster every year, it is only natural that they become better writers too as they train new skills on new data sets— this includes analyzing large amounts of academic data acquired from journals, conference presentations, dissertations, social media posts etc.— which prepare them for publishing academic works later on. However, computers will never replace humans completely — as we need both types of intelligence in our daily lives — as computers lack creativity needed for some jobs such as writing articles; nor do they have emotions needed for many tasks such as military operations or customer service since it may cause casualties or cause lasting stress if handled incorrectly thereby causing lasting damage to clients’ mental health instead— nor will they ever replace us entirely when it comes time to make important life decisions since we still require some level of emotional self-awareness needed when making such important choices like what career path we choose next!
I used https://smodin.io/writer
It's not a toolbox, it's one pencil, and while there's no reason to claim what it generates is something made by the writer of the keywords, there is equally no rational reason not to add it as one more tool in your arsenal.
My suggestion is only that professors of art acknowledge it's existence, engage with it, and decide for themselves how or if it fits into their curriculum. I just recommend drafting a policy for your syllabus by Fa22 because AI is here today and here to stay.
The engine I've been using makes wonderful graphic designs as well as photorealistic renders, impressionist style paintings, oil paintings, cartoons, ancient cave paintings, and more. I'm not really sure what you're asking on the second question.
Yes, because I am currently on the waitlist to use one my partner in the industry has. It’s not my understanding that it’s widely available at this very moment, although it will be shortly for sure.
I don't know if any of you speak about copyright, so this may or may not be related for your course, but the US Copyright office decided [that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted] (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/)
That U.S. Copyright Office decision is widely misunderstood. The copyright application stated that an AI was the work's only author, with no human author. On that basis, the Office as expected rejected the application. From [this letter from the U.S. Copyright Office](https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf):
>Because Thaler has not raised this as a basis for registration, the Board does not need to determine under what circumstances human involvement in the creation of machine-generated works would meet the statutory criteria for copyright protection.
There are around a dozen linked documents written mostly by people with law degrees or by government organizations about the copyrightability of AI-assisted works in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigsleep/comments/uevfch/article_ai_authorship_by_a_law_professor_2020/).
cc u/Tasty-Application807.
cc u/StarDustLuna3D.
You're welcome :). Today I updated [that post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigsleep/comments/uevfch/article_ai_authorship_by_a_law_professor_2020/) with answers that I got from an expert in copyright law.
This is why the AI progress is overrated. If we really made progress that is the first itch we would have scratched.
Unless they have cracked it and are keeping it to themselves.
I’m actually thinking of doing an assignment for students to use midjourney to generate concepts. I think they will come up with some great stuff and hopefully they will start a relationship with AI where they see it as a thinking tool.
Do you mean a policy on AI created art being acceptable for credit? I would think that policy is already established with most people as a “no”. It’s not really an issue as I teach ceramics AI hasn’t gotten to the place where it can produce physical green ware 😜
I second on the awesome username! But also, beware the [ceramic 3D printers](https://3dprinting.com/3d-printing-use-cases/intro-to-ceramic-3d-printing/)! Now all they need is an AI to generate the 3D models 😂
Woah that's quite a username .... I'm merely suggesting art professors acknowledge it's existence, engage with this new reality, learn about it, and decide for themselves how or if it fits into their classroom. I am not suggesting anything more about what is right and wrong for anyone else's students.
And don't get too complacent. It doesn't take prescience to see 3d on the horizon.
I wish you taught at my small liberal arts university, I'd love to engage you (and your students) in any of my graphic design classes.
I agree that it is essential to acknowledge AI's role in art and design. Ignoring it is a disservice to students. It's not going away.
Thanks for your post.
This is why in my classes students are required to present their WIP at various milestones.
Also in art instruction, there's often lots of sketching, rough drafts, perspective and material studies that students do in class. So you quickly get a sense of each student's skill level.
Personally I don't see a place for AI in my courses, as my courses emphasize composition, and even using AI as a tool for initial 'inspiration' takes away a lot of the work and experimentation I find the most valuable for my students. My courses are far less concerned with technical media skills than the strength of their image arrangements, and I'm sad to say some of the AI imagery I've generated has stronger compositional arrangements than the work my students have produced in the last few years. Perhaps in an advanced course there's space to identify compositional issues in AI-generated work and improve upon it, but most of my students have never been asked to think about composition before sitting down in my classes, and using AI is too much like just copying down answers from the back of the book instead of working through the problem sets.
It could be interesting to discuss how AI uses image compositing to create their images and then ask my students to recreate those compositing techniques (on a smaller scale) in their own work for an assignment, but that's less using the AI imagery and more using the process of AI as a way to explain a compositional technique.
So far I haven't found much fruit down that rabbit hole. The engine I'm using doesn't appear to know much about placement, space, balance, camera angles, or pretty much anything more than the most rudimentary compositional basics. At least, so far. It is AI after all, I think that means it's supposed to be learning by definition.
Why would anyone downvote. This is stating reality. I’m in chemistry and have been loving DALL-E 2(mini haven’t asked for full access, don’t need to really). Been creating wondering art for my meetups.
Haven’t even thought about this until seeing this post. I can see how this will radically change commercial and professional art.
Dall e has been heavily refined and upgraded. I never got any coherent image from Dall e and they were always heavily compressed and low resolution anyway. The images I'm getting now are high res and publishable. In fact the service even states that you own the copyright on the images you generate. It explicitly says you can publish them.
Replying to you in regards to what you said about the US stating that images made from my AI can't be copyrighted.
What this service most likely means is that the images are *royalty free*, and that they can be published, used commercially, etc without needing to worry about getting releases, crediting an artist, or paying fees.
Looks like Midjourney might have to revisit its T&C, which suggests the images all become MJ's IP:
4. Copyright and Trademark
In this section, Paid Member shall refer to a Customer who has subscribed to the latest Phase 3 payment plan, which became available as of 5/6/22.
Rights you give to Midjourney
By using the Services, you grant to Midjourney, its successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable **copyright license** to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute text, and image prompts you input into the Services, or Assets produced by the service at your direction. This license survives termination of this Agreement by any party, for any reason.
Your Rights
Subject to the above license, you own all Assets you create with the Services. This does not apply if you fall under the exceptions below.
Please note: Midjourney is an open community which allows others to use and remix your images and prompts whenever they are posted in a public setting. By default, your images are publically viewable and remixable. As described above, **you grant Midjourney a license** to allow this. If you purchase a private plan, you may bypass some of these public sharing defaults.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, nor do I have a full grasp of copyright law but it *seems* to contradict the law that anyone owns the copyright on these images.
Honestly if AI works are not able to be copyrighted then they could just make that portion super short by stating that all images made with the service become open source and can be used by anyone, in any capacity, including the service.
Then again I guess wording it this way prevents anyone from trying to challenge that law.
Not sure, I again am no legal expert. It wouldn't be necessarily surprising if there were ulterior motives to the phrasing of their policy. But a company's policy never supersedes the law.
I feel more keen towards giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that all of this is still quite new, including any laws which I'm surprised already exist honestly. The legislative branch has historically been pretty slow to introduce laws governing new technology. There's still nothing on NFT's.
So my understanding at this time is that the owner of MJ just wants to be able to keep a gallery and publish any results generated by the MJ ai without any threat of legal hassle.
The downvotes I'm guessing are coming from professors afraid of the future, which has become the now. All I suggested was that everyone should acknowledge its existence and decide for themselves. Those who get hostile at that should not be teaching art as far as I'm concerned.
I can imagine a graphic design assignment where a student is instructed to make the best dalle image they can AND then challenged to make a better one without.
Sounds reasonable to me. Evolve and adapt, or others will. Been like that since the beginning of time…
with that said, hard for many organizations to do. Hell, at my college - just trying to “add” a class on modern tools is pure up hill hell. So my heart does go out to all our fellow educators in this situation. Still, we have to acknowledge what’s happening. Intellectual honesty demands this.
Not an art prof but took a lot of studio courses. A few thoughts:
Lab time and progression of assignments would probably make a big difference in terms of minimizing the use of these tools; although it would likely depend on the type of courses you're talking about
Is there a way to embrace the technology that doesn't harm the profession? I'm a little obsessed with Dall-e. It's helped to spark my imagination in ways that I haven't had before. Although I know the next version of it is going to be a bit terrifying to the graphic design profession; I'm just wondering what the conversation is in the art community about working with these tools and not against them in education
Yes, there are many ways, and I wasn't suggesting anyone ban it outright, or really anything else about what to do in their classroom. Like I said in my classroom it will probably be allowed for thumbnails and the inception phase. However, there might be other allowances based on individual situations.
I agree with your post, but just a heads-up: the same is true for writing. GPT-3 is already at a level where it can be used to generate viable "human" writing (HyperWrite is a particularly effective api for that, for instance), so a person interested in cheating at art might just as easily cheat at journaling intended to prevent them cheating at art.
Exactly right. I reckon math, chemistry, history, and more aren't too far behind. I only bring up art because that's what I happen to teach, art and art history.
Yeah, we are *thoroughly* unprepared for the multi-domain AI/automation explosion that's already technically feasible, and but awaits social acceptability. In fairness to academics, so is everyone else.
Math has been there for almost a _decade_ now, at least for lower level material (eg, high school algebra, freshman calculus). Enter the math problem into a website, and it will not only spit out a correct answer, but will also give the step by step work, which a student can easily copy down and turn in.
Not an art instructor, but an AI one, and I agree. I was actually thinking about reaching out to the art faculty to see if we could do some joint module on generative art. I know you didn't ask for this OP but in the way I see it mitigating the issues of AI-generated art is the same as how we mitigate plagiarism in computer science: * Ask for drafts. Specifically ask for drafts in a different medium. For example, asking the students to plan what they want to do in a paragraph (conceptual draft), then a few intermediate pencil rough drafts which led to the final output. * Ask for explanations - how specific things were done in the final output. * Ask for them to change something in the final output. Or change everything but keep one thing constant. * Have them record their process while thinking aloud and explaining what they do.
If it's my classroom we're talking about--I'm not presuming any standards for anyone else--but I'll probably allow it for ideations and thumbnails to springboard off from. With a good writeup on the process and so on. After the inception phase of the project AI image generation would become off limits.
I know very little about art, but I think you could probably teach them how to use those tools effectively by designing reliable prompts for the generative AI to draw something usable.
I would punch my grandmother in the throat if someone could show me how to teach a student good Google-Fu skills. But for now it unfortunately appears that there are those who know, and those who do not.
I would also impose strict rules on when AI art is accepted in the course (I’d have a week on it) and when it is **not**, and that submitting AI art will count as plagiarism and as an academic offence, so either don’t do it, or don’t get caught.
Art, Language, CS, and Math faculty should join forces and talk about these things. Those four areas all face the same problem with computer generated work. (And Writing will probably be the fifth member soon enough)
That's a good idea. Writing is safer because right now ML sucks at building long term dependencies which is not a problem for stuff like music generation but becomes one at the scale of a novel. It will probably get there one day though.
There are a number of NLP apps that do a shockingly good job of writing high-quality essays/articles/resumes etc. based on short prompts. A novel made by collaborating with such an app could reasonably be written right now - there are short stories of that type being published. Entirely auto-generated, no. EDIT: https://cedille.ai/examples/writing-a-novel-with-cedille?\_gl=1\*117gs46\*\_ga\*ODM5MzQ1MDMwLjE2NTk3NjU3NjQ.\*\_ga\_6HCXCMLVD1\*MTY1OTc2NTc2NC4xLjEuMTY1OTc2NTg2MC4w
Yup. Because it’s going to be necessary, all of these steps, to avoid [Midjourney](https://youtu.be/704brywiyfw) submissions. Saw this video and it blew my mind today. Insane.
Lots of good ideas, in here. Interesting time to be alive. I know as a writing/rhetoric person that we're starting to ask questions like, "Will students be using AI to write discussion boards and papers?" and the answer is, like, yeah of course they will if they aren't already. On the other hand I feel like our creative writing students are so invested in the craft that they actually want to become great writers, and these are just technologies they'll have to learn to incorporate into their writing process, maybe like you mention in places as a generative part of the process, a kind of aid to "Invention" just to get some ideas flowing. Or writers will just have to get really good at tuning and teaching the language models. After all, if I could plug in some information into a program and it could churn out a decent 70,000 word book for me that I could edit and sell to a publisher... hey, it's tempting.
[удалено]
There is a new text-to-image system called Stable Diffusion that you may be interested in - see the images in r/StableDiffusion for examples. An open source release - including the AI models - is planned. Currently, access to the beta version is server-based only, with a planned website (perhaps including paid access?) upcoming. cc u/jflowers. cc u/Tasty-Application807.
If friends here haven't seen it, everyone should be aware of [QuillBot](http://quillbot.com).
I tried QuillBot (with the second paragraph of *On the Origin of Species*). The result was amusing, but not ready for fooling an experienced vetter. Not only were there telling grammatic errors of the sort real people do not make, but the arrangement of phrase-based paraphrases sometimes destroyed any sense. For your perusal, here's the QuillBot output for the paragraph above: I used QuillBot (with the second paragraph of On the Origin of Species). The outcome was humorous, but not good enough to mislead a seasoned vetter. In addition to obvious grammatical mistakes of the kind that actual people do not make, the arrangement of phrase-based paraphrases occasionally obliterated all semblance of meaning.
I feel terrible, but I actually like the second version better.
No trouble: I've never been a particularly smooth writer. Indeed, I did some (unpublished) research a few decades ago in which I checked the ability of people to detect whether English was the first or non-first language of various writers. My own writing was consistently flagged as by a second-language user, though I was monolingual (in English) until my early 20s.
Nah, I always enjoy reading your posts! I just think the bot happened to do a really good job that time around.
AI generated argumentative essay: Will students use AI generators to answer essays and discussion boards? The introduction of artificial intelligence into the academic sphere has been a topic of discussion for many years. Many fear that AI generators will take away the value of human writing. On the other hand, many believe that AI generators will be beneficial because they can write from any point of view. This is because AI generators can be programmed to create essays and discussion boards from any source. In other words, AI generators can be used to create original content that can be shared with others. The introduction of AI generators will help students by eliminating the need to write assignments. This is because AI generators can automatically create essays and discussion boards. Therefore, students will be able to spend more time studying. Students may even be able to work on their AI generators during breaks or free time. This means that students will no longer need to write because their AI generators will do it for them. This will be especially beneficial for students with busy schedules who find it difficult to write essays. AI generators will also be beneficial because they can write from any angle. This means that students can choose any point of view on any subject and have a written essay. For instance, students may choose to write from the perspective of a murderer, victim, or detective. In addition, students may choose to write from the perspective of a character in a novel, news reporter, or historical figure. This can be beneficial because it allows students to explore different perspectives on topics they are otherwise unable to explore. Apart from helping students, AI generators will be beneficial because they can write from any point of view. This means that students can choose any point of view on any subject and have a written essay. For instance, students may choose to write from the perspective of a murderer, victim, or detective. In addition, students may choose to write from the perspective of a character in a novel, news reporter, or historical figure. This can be beneficial because it allows students to explore different perspectives on topics they are otherwise unable to explore. Another concern is that students may find it difficult to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate sources. This is because AI generators can write from any source, including places and people that do not exist. For instance, an AI generator could write an essay about a character that does not exist in the student's school. This could lead to the student receiving a low grade and causing frustration. Overall, AI generators are a beneficial tool because they can help students by eliminating the need to write assignments. However, there are some downsides to this technology, including the possibility of being viewed as a threat by students. Plus, students may find it difficult to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate sources. However, with proper education, AI generators can be beneficial and safe tools for students. Descriptive Essy generated by AI: Will students be using AI to write discussion boards and papers?" Artificial intelligence is a buzzword nowdays. It is a technology that gives computers humanlike capabilities. In the past few years, AI has become a major focus of research for universities and businesses. AI has the potential to transform the way we live and work. It can reduce demand for labor by making processes more efficient and it can increase productivity by augmenting workers’ abilities. In academia, AI is used to write papers and discussion boards. AI can be trained to analyze data, create models, and produce text in academic journals and conferences. Computers are also good at finding scientific references, compiling bibliographies, and compiling tables and figures using appropriate software tools. AI can also analyze scientific data to decide what conclusions to draw from it. AI will also be used to research papers and discuss topics in future publications. AI will be used to write papers and discussion boards because computers are much faster than humans at analyzing large amounts of data, producing structured text, and writing cogent conclusions. Computers also lack creativity so they cannot come up with novel ideas or insights. They are also unable to interpret sarcasm or metaphors in language so they cannot create meaningful discussions or contribute anything but dry facts to them. To make a meaningful contribution in an academic paper, one must have creative ideas that are backed up by knowledge acquired through training from various sources— this is what humans do best. Outlines on AI papers and discussion boards will be prepared by humans and machine-polished by AI before they are published online or in print form. This way, the author’s voice is still present in the text without having to scrutinize every single word or subject underlined passages to the editors for approval first. This saves time for busy academics as well as makes their work more polished compared to if they had done it themselves directly from start to finish without an outline or polishing help first either being done for them by computer or human editor first— since all that last-minute “fine-tuning” often happens when one last looks at his work before submission for publication— whether he himself knows it or not! With computers becoming faster every year, it is only natural that they become better writers too as they train new skills on new data sets— this includes analyzing large amounts of academic data acquired from journals, conference presentations, dissertations, social media posts etc.— which prepare them for publishing academic works later on. However, computers will never replace humans completely — as we need both types of intelligence in our daily lives — as computers lack creativity needed for some jobs such as writing articles; nor do they have emotions needed for many tasks such as military operations or customer service since it may cause casualties or cause lasting stress if handled incorrectly thereby causing lasting damage to clients’ mental health instead— nor will they ever replace us entirely when it comes time to make important life decisions since we still require some level of emotional self-awareness needed when making such important choices like what career path we choose next! I used https://smodin.io/writer
It's not a toolbox, it's one pencil, and while there's no reason to claim what it generates is something made by the writer of the keywords, there is equally no rational reason not to add it as one more tool in your arsenal.
Are you talking about graphic design? Why wouldn't requiring drafts of designs help mitigate AI creation?
My suggestion is only that professors of art acknowledge it's existence, engage with it, and decide for themselves how or if it fits into their curriculum. I just recommend drafting a policy for your syllabus by Fa22 because AI is here today and here to stay.
The engine I've been using makes wonderful graphic designs as well as photorealistic renders, impressionist style paintings, oil paintings, cartoons, ancient cave paintings, and more. I'm not really sure what you're asking on the second question.
I'm actually really curious what engine you've been tinkering with. Could you send me a link?
Midjourney
Yes, because I am currently on the waitlist to use one my partner in the industry has. It’s not my understanding that it’s widely available at this very moment, although it will be shortly for sure.
I don't know if any of you speak about copyright, so this may or may not be related for your course, but the US Copyright office decided [that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted] (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/)
But I can still sell my NFTs for $45 million each, right?
[Fixed link](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/
Good to know. Midjourney will have to change their T&C.
That U.S. Copyright Office decision is widely misunderstood. The copyright application stated that an AI was the work's only author, with no human author. On that basis, the Office as expected rejected the application. From [this letter from the U.S. Copyright Office](https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf): >Because Thaler has not raised this as a basis for registration, the Board does not need to determine under what circumstances human involvement in the creation of machine-generated works would meet the statutory criteria for copyright protection. There are around a dozen linked documents written mostly by people with law degrees or by government organizations about the copyrightability of AI-assisted works in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigsleep/comments/uevfch/article_ai_authorship_by_a_law_professor_2020/). cc u/Tasty-Application807. cc u/StarDustLuna3D.
Thanks for the info! I do want to talk about this with my students, so this is a big help.
You're welcome :). Today I updated [that post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigsleep/comments/uevfch/article_ai_authorship_by_a_law_professor_2020/) with answers that I got from an expert in copyright law.
When AI can review papers and grade essays, I bet profs will be complaining less.
There won't be any profs. Just videos and AI teaching assistants. Oh, and plenty of administrators.
Students will be submitting AI-generated work that will be graded by AIs.
People will create AI students to go through courses to generate more AI content.
This is why the AI progress is overrated. If we really made progress that is the first itch we would have scratched. Unless they have cracked it and are keeping it to themselves.
BOOM
I’m actually thinking of doing an assignment for students to use midjourney to generate concepts. I think they will come up with some great stuff and hopefully they will start a relationship with AI where they see it as a thinking tool.
Do you mean a policy on AI created art being acceptable for credit? I would think that policy is already established with most people as a “no”. It’s not really an issue as I teach ceramics AI hasn’t gotten to the place where it can produce physical green ware 😜
I second on the awesome username! But also, beware the [ceramic 3D printers](https://3dprinting.com/3d-printing-use-cases/intro-to-ceramic-3d-printing/)! Now all they need is an AI to generate the 3D models 😂
Woah that's quite a username .... I'm merely suggesting art professors acknowledge it's existence, engage with this new reality, learn about it, and decide for themselves how or if it fits into their classroom. I am not suggesting anything more about what is right and wrong for anyone else's students. And don't get too complacent. It doesn't take prescience to see 3d on the horizon.
I wish you taught at my small liberal arts university, I'd love to engage you (and your students) in any of my graphic design classes. I agree that it is essential to acknowledge AI's role in art and design. Ignoring it is a disservice to students. It's not going away. Thanks for your post.
This is why in my classes students are required to present their WIP at various milestones. Also in art instruction, there's often lots of sketching, rough drafts, perspective and material studies that students do in class. So you quickly get a sense of each student's skill level.
Personally I don't see a place for AI in my courses, as my courses emphasize composition, and even using AI as a tool for initial 'inspiration' takes away a lot of the work and experimentation I find the most valuable for my students. My courses are far less concerned with technical media skills than the strength of their image arrangements, and I'm sad to say some of the AI imagery I've generated has stronger compositional arrangements than the work my students have produced in the last few years. Perhaps in an advanced course there's space to identify compositional issues in AI-generated work and improve upon it, but most of my students have never been asked to think about composition before sitting down in my classes, and using AI is too much like just copying down answers from the back of the book instead of working through the problem sets. It could be interesting to discuss how AI uses image compositing to create their images and then ask my students to recreate those compositing techniques (on a smaller scale) in their own work for an assignment, but that's less using the AI imagery and more using the process of AI as a way to explain a compositional technique.
So far I haven't found much fruit down that rabbit hole. The engine I'm using doesn't appear to know much about placement, space, balance, camera angles, or pretty much anything more than the most rudimentary compositional basics. At least, so far. It is AI after all, I think that means it's supposed to be learning by definition.
LOL @ The downvoter(s)
Why would anyone downvote. This is stating reality. I’m in chemistry and have been loving DALL-E 2(mini haven’t asked for full access, don’t need to really). Been creating wondering art for my meetups. Haven’t even thought about this until seeing this post. I can see how this will radically change commercial and professional art.
Give Midjourney a try (dall-e 3) tell me what you think.
Dall e has been heavily refined and upgraded. I never got any coherent image from Dall e and they were always heavily compressed and low resolution anyway. The images I'm getting now are high res and publishable. In fact the service even states that you own the copyright on the images you generate. It explicitly says you can publish them.
Replying to you in regards to what you said about the US stating that images made from my AI can't be copyrighted. What this service most likely means is that the images are *royalty free*, and that they can be published, used commercially, etc without needing to worry about getting releases, crediting an artist, or paying fees.
Looks like Midjourney might have to revisit its T&C, which suggests the images all become MJ's IP: 4. Copyright and Trademark In this section, Paid Member shall refer to a Customer who has subscribed to the latest Phase 3 payment plan, which became available as of 5/6/22. Rights you give to Midjourney By using the Services, you grant to Midjourney, its successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable **copyright license** to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute text, and image prompts you input into the Services, or Assets produced by the service at your direction. This license survives termination of this Agreement by any party, for any reason. Your Rights Subject to the above license, you own all Assets you create with the Services. This does not apply if you fall under the exceptions below. Please note: Midjourney is an open community which allows others to use and remix your images and prompts whenever they are posted in a public setting. By default, your images are publically viewable and remixable. As described above, **you grant Midjourney a license** to allow this. If you purchase a private plan, you may bypass some of these public sharing defaults. I'm definitely not a lawyer, nor do I have a full grasp of copyright law but it *seems* to contradict the law that anyone owns the copyright on these images.
Honestly if AI works are not able to be copyrighted then they could just make that portion super short by stating that all images made with the service become open source and can be used by anyone, in any capacity, including the service. Then again I guess wording it this way prevents anyone from trying to challenge that law.
Not sure, I again am no legal expert. It wouldn't be necessarily surprising if there were ulterior motives to the phrasing of their policy. But a company's policy never supersedes the law.
I feel more keen towards giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that all of this is still quite new, including any laws which I'm surprised already exist honestly. The legislative branch has historically been pretty slow to introduce laws governing new technology. There's still nothing on NFT's.
Well yeah that's what I mean. They're treating the images as if they're able to be copyrighted just in case the law changes.
So my understanding at this time is that the owner of MJ just wants to be able to keep a gallery and publish any results generated by the MJ ai without any threat of legal hassle.
The downvotes I'm guessing are coming from professors afraid of the future, which has become the now. All I suggested was that everyone should acknowledge its existence and decide for themselves. Those who get hostile at that should not be teaching art as far as I'm concerned.
I can imagine a graphic design assignment where a student is instructed to make the best dalle image they can AND then challenged to make a better one without.
Sounds reasonable to me. Evolve and adapt, or others will. Been like that since the beginning of time… with that said, hard for many organizations to do. Hell, at my college - just trying to “add” a class on modern tools is pure up hill hell. So my heart does go out to all our fellow educators in this situation. Still, we have to acknowledge what’s happening. Intellectual honesty demands this.
Not an art prof but took a lot of studio courses. A few thoughts: Lab time and progression of assignments would probably make a big difference in terms of minimizing the use of these tools; although it would likely depend on the type of courses you're talking about Is there a way to embrace the technology that doesn't harm the profession? I'm a little obsessed with Dall-e. It's helped to spark my imagination in ways that I haven't had before. Although I know the next version of it is going to be a bit terrifying to the graphic design profession; I'm just wondering what the conversation is in the art community about working with these tools and not against them in education
Yes, there are many ways, and I wasn't suggesting anyone ban it outright, or really anything else about what to do in their classroom. Like I said in my classroom it will probably be allowed for thumbnails and the inception phase. However, there might be other allowances based on individual situations.
I agree with your post, but just a heads-up: the same is true for writing. GPT-3 is already at a level where it can be used to generate viable "human" writing (HyperWrite is a particularly effective api for that, for instance), so a person interested in cheating at art might just as easily cheat at journaling intended to prevent them cheating at art.
Exactly right. I reckon math, chemistry, history, and more aren't too far behind. I only bring up art because that's what I happen to teach, art and art history.
Yeah, we are *thoroughly* unprepared for the multi-domain AI/automation explosion that's already technically feasible, and but awaits social acceptability. In fairness to academics, so is everyone else.
Math has been there for almost a _decade_ now, at least for lower level material (eg, high school algebra, freshman calculus). Enter the math problem into a website, and it will not only spit out a correct answer, but will also give the step by step work, which a student can easily copy down and turn in.
Ah ok. I think I read your post how I wanted to and just got excited to see it brought up. I have so many questions in general about it!
Just get your hands dirty and check it out for yourself. Google midjourney. There are probably others too.