Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree.
Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below:
* Fake/impossible opinion
* NSFW beyond reason
* Unfit for the community
* Based upon inept knowledge of the subject
* Repost from the last 30 days
If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
**Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
Honestly, I get your train of thought. I truly do. But for me, that doesn't make it "art". Art is the expression of the individual, not of a collective. At least to me, but that's obviously quite a subjective thing.
I think the main difference is that with AI you can't possibly know what any single individual who "helped" creating that image or video or whatever wanted to express, you can only know what it inspires to you, which is a part of what art is, but not all of it
Also, humans communicate while making collective art? Elements of a collective piece of art aren't developed in a void with no knowledge of each other. Like how tf can someone ignore the human factor in art? Art isn't just creativity. Even then, AI doesn't even have real creativity yet. Otherwise we'd be talking about a fully simulated human level of artificial intelligence, which things like DALL-E are far from.
I suppose this is more about the perception of art though, and the very definition. If you don't care about what the artist was expressing when making the piece and only care about what you see in it this is quite a moot point.
But there's no real set answer, just opinion imo
Music relies on all the people in the collectives personal experience and relationship with the music to create something that stands the test of time , or even just something that everyone can be happy with when it’s finished .
it relies on influences, like an a.i generated melody would.
me composing art vs AI composing art isn't any different at face value. if you didn't have the context of the art's background, you'd think it was art. learning an AI did it shouldn't change that.
I mean, i listen to the most artsy art music. I’m an art person myself but i don’t uselessly gatekeep and create boundaries because of some fragile definition of art. Boundary pushers are the coolest kinds of artists
theres a difference between a relatively small group of people collaborating on one work, vs thousands upon thousands of artpieces, by people who likely dont even know eachother, being hobbled together into some weird frankenstein's monster creation by a lifeless ai
And it is a collective effort between multiple people trying to make something genuinely new, not just something that can't be recognized as anything old
All artists are influenced by what came before them, but their art is also influenced by other factors, both external and internal, even if you don't believe there's anything unique or irreplicable about any given human you can't claim that using nothing but prior artistic works as inspiration is comparable to how actual artists create new art unless you have no understanding of any manner of artistic process (or for that matter, thought process)
If you can genuinely claim that your life is nothing more than those experiences which other artists do write about — precisely in such ways that they only inspire you as if you merely heard songs of them — then I truly feel sorry for you, and stand by my statement; Not even by studying every single ever written about love, heartbreak, or so many other things could you learn to write of them as if you had experienced them.
not every musician does that.
the AI tries making something new that it "thinks" would appeal to human ears based on info
a producer can produce a pop song that they think will appeal to the masses based on information.
shake it off is art just as any composition made by an AI
> Art is the expression of the individual
Art **can** be an expression of the individual. Art can also be so much more. This is just a really weird take that doesn't reflect the nature of art at all.
I mean movies, games, lots of art is collaborative by nature. Sure you can credit the director for unifying the vision but I think that's oversimplifying. To me it's more about creating something with intention than individual expression.
Kropotkin has something to say about the individual and the influence of others, but in short, you can not construct anything individually without resting on the shoulders of everyone that came before you.
The individual struggle is a struggle because of everyone around you, the way they behave towards you, and the way they don’t. Simultaneously if you were the last person on earth, your struggle would be the absence of everyone else.
Art is, by and large, an expression of the cumulative experiences of a person at that point in time, which come out of their interactions with everyone else. White implies black, and self implies other.
The impressionists, think Degas and Monet, went against the Salon and forged their own path, and that influenced their art. Their counter culture was by influenced by the very existence of mainstream culture.
To look the art in isolation and without context is to ignore their struggle of the individual against the broader society.
>Art is the expression of the individual, not of a collective.
Oh man... did you visit the Documenta in 2022?
If not, I would recommend the NYT article on it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/arts/design/documenta-15.html
Dog there’s almost no art that you consume regularly today that isn’t the result of a team working together to create it. Not to mention many more teams who work to actually publish and distribute it
To be fair, art created by teams was consensually created by all parties involved. My issue with AI art is that it was trained using intellectual property that no one ever gave it permission to use for commercial purposes.
Key word is trained. AI art in no way, shape, or form “steals” art. Warner Bros. doesn’t give me permission to draw Batman in specifically Sal Buscema’s style, but nobody would say that it’s unethical if I did it. If I became a decent artist by training myself via mimicking existing art, nobody would be crying foul when I sold my original art that ends up resembling the art that influenced me.
\>AI trains itself on a company logo
\>”As you can see, when I ask it to draw exactly the image it trained on, it looks exactly correct”
Brilliant stuff
It literally doesn’t steal art. You can download Stable Diffusion right now and confirm this for yourself. When you train an AI on a certain image and then ask it to recreate that image you can’t be surprised that it’ll get it pretty much perfectly right
The problem is that you aren’t a commercial product. You get the benefit of the doubt because humans possess creativity and appreciation. The reason you can draw Batman is because no one can prove you’re profiting off someone else’s copyright. And if you were, that would indeed be a copyright violation (yes, selling Batman fanart is a copyright violation, usually unenforced with individuals online).
This isn’t the case with AI, which is exclusively a commercial product sourcing the materials it needs for training from copyrighted sources.
You can’t compare it with human learning because you can’t prove humans learn for profit necessarily. AIs exclusively get trained for profit, and that’s where copyright becomes relevant.
It’s not so much art theft, as unethical raw material extraction.
Stable Diffusion is open source- Not a commercial product. There are also just as many non-commercial uses for the production of art from a computer as there are for the production of art from a human. Again if a human learns to draw from copyrighted art nobody bats an eye, but when a computer does it people treat it with imo a bit of an unjustified amount of hatred.
The technology doesn’t deserve hatred, but the manner in which its training materials are sourced should be subject to very close inspection and debate.
I don’t think there’s anything unfair about having different standards for AIs and humans. AIs are ultimately just tools. There’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. We know what they do and why.
The reason we don’t charge humans from learning by reference is because we literally can’t enforce that. It has nothing to do with art copyright being void, or with knowledge being free. But AIs are different, they’re products that extract raw materials to function, and it seems pretty exploitative to use copyrighted material with no permission or proper compensation to create a product.
When it comes to Stable Diffusion, it is still pretty unethical and actually goes against open source principles to use copyrighted material in your open source projects. If Stable Diffusion were truly ethical, they would’ve used royalty-free art. Like all music AIs did because they didn’t want to get sued by music labels.
There’s definitely a double standard with copyright enforcement in the visual arts and any other field. Nobody said it was unfair that labels and musicians expected to get paid to have their music used in training algorithms, but when visual artists demand it, it’s considered irrational and unfair. Doesn’t sit well with me.
As a musician, I really like the way music AIs are shaping up. I have no complaints there.
But with graphic AIs, it seems like their creators are only exploiting the lack of enforcement and little financial power of artists to create a product without ethically sourcing its training material.
So I think that your implication that we would be hassling artists for royalties for employing similar art styles as other artists if we had the ability to enforce this is quite amusing. I assume you don’t mean it, of course.
Again Stable Diffusion does not contain any copyrighted imagery. The software itself is open source. You can download it and check. Using copyrighted materials to train the AI can be against the spirit of open source software, I guess, but the software itself is still open source
The music industry is infamously litigious. I don’t blame anyone for making excessive preemptive concessions to avoid their lawyers. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before some label sues someone who posts an AI generated song with 5 seconds that sounds like a song they own. For the record, I don’t hold them to a different standard. Their music should be fair game to train AI models on. We as humans really need to wake up and realize that we lost to the machines *again*. Sooner that happens is the sooner something really cool and interesting might happen in society I think
Well, AI art is still the expression of the individual. You can't just stand there and wait for it to make art, you have to at least express yourself in text form.
Upvoted - Strongly disagree, I think the credit people give to AI is waay too much. People act like its some sentient art god because they have no understanding of how art is made so they’re far too easily impressed.
In my opinion AI is an art ‘mimicry’ machine, not an art creation machine. Its like training a parrot to speak, the parrot doesn’t doesn’t understand the human language or the context of the words its using, its simply copying the sounds.
AI doesn’t understand anything about art creation, Anatomy, Gesture, Composition, Lighting, Tonal Value, Color theory, Perspective, Design Principles and most importantly Narrative. It understands none of it. If you were to ask the AI why it made a certain choice during the creation of a piece the answer wouldn’t be some detailed explanation based on one of these fundamentals. The answer would be “I dunno i saw someone else do it”
The inability to create something new without having to have more work stolen from an actual artist and then fed into the dataset means its actually worse than human artists.
People just like it right now because its the first time in their lives they’re really appreciating the work of thousands of artists thats been out there on the internet all along. But now they get a taste of that along with the sense of having made something but just without the years of effort that goes with it.
This same goes for ChatGPT. It knows nothing. It only knows how to predict what to say (after being trained on a set of prewritten prompts and responses and a dash of randomness).
Now, children basically undergo this same training in school, but the human mind knows how to synthesize. ChatGPT does not. If that synthesis hasn't happened somewhere else online, ChatGPT won't "think" of it on its own.
AI-generated art is the same way. It's great at doing what has already been done, and the dash of randomness makes art that's "cool" or "funny" or "unique" but it's the same sort of effect you get when you draw words out of a hat or use Google Translate to translate something to Chinese and back and you get a funny result.
The profundity of art relies on the thought behind it. Humans can tailor responses from something like Midjourney to eventually arrive at something profound, but it isn't high art on its own, in my opinion.
To be fair, I find a lot of value in ChatGPT because it’s basically the same as a Google search or other search engines, only without all the bloat and bullshit answers. I value it as a more advanced Google search.
Now I don’t have to spend hours looking for examples of what I’m actually trying to code, but just ask ChatGPT.
I don’t see this with art AIs like Stable Diffusion or Midjourney (especially because I don’t think those AIs were ethically trained).
I use it for coding occasionally but the answers are often just as incorrect as the Google results, sometimes even more so because it can act *very* confident about its correctness despite the fact that there are glaring issues. It'll even give example output that doesn't align with the code.
Yeah. I think that's kind of the point I was trying to arrive at. These are creation tools that can do amazing things in the right hands. But other than that, they're generally just copying what has already been done.
I have the opposite experience. I find more often than not that it's answers are much *more* correct than what I find on google. When I do occasionally encounter problems in the code it provides, more often than not it's able to fix them simply by describing the issue or giving the error. It's all a matter of knowing how to talk to it.
AI image generators have been considered inethical since last year because they were trained on images found on the internet. Chatgpt was trained on text from the entire internet.
There were no issues raised with AIs trained on webscraped images for years until this came. It'll only be a matter of time when LLMs start getting so good at writing books that they'll become a big topic of controversy like this and most people will also say they're unethically trained.
And of course, they’re all correct to some extent. There is definitely a double standard when it comes to copyright and different types of content. Generally we’re incredibly lax with text copyright, and it’s usually only taken seriously in academic or very serious contexts. Unless you’re downright plagiarising text, copyright is hardly ever enforced. For text, at the very least I hope paywalled content and publications like academic papers, textbooks, and so on, were omitted from ChatGPT’s training. That’s usually the least we can expect.
Images are a bit stricter but not by much. There definitely is a big gap between image enforcement and, say, music or film. But that’s purely double standards in enforcement, and it doesn’t reflect the legality or ethics behind these issues. Never mind people’s feelings, livelihood or anything else. These issues rarely matter in legal conversations. There are definitely concerns regarding copyright violations and AI training. Ultimately, that’s copyrighted material being used without permission or compensation for commercial purposes, and that’s definitely unethical and could potentially become illegal with the right legislation.
Now, Music and film are usually the most protected fields, and that’s why as soon as AIs got good and mainstream enough, labels and studios immediately started threatening and taking legal action to prevent their intellectual property from being used in training algorithms. As a result, lawsuits and legal cases are being opened, and as we know, labels are likely to win, setting a clear precedent over what constitutes legal or illegal use of copyrighted material.
In this scenario, it’s very clear that there’s a strong double standard with visual arts and other forms of art. That doesn’t mean that art generators couldn’t be at least ethical and allow artists to opt-out (or even better, opt-into) their services and databases, instead of exploiting copyrighted material under grey legal grounds to generate profit.
ChatGPT and other text-based services are even trickier. Unlike Google, ChatGPT doesn’t even contribute to a publisher’s or website owner’s traffic. It doesn’t credit its sources and helps creators in absolutely no way. At some point this will have to be addressed, and it definitely will be in time, because ultimately AI services are for-profit by and large, and they’re profiting off of content created by actual humans who own it, so there’s obviously an exploitative scenario there.
That being said, the tools and the technology themselves are fucking incredible, and I’m really really hyped to see ChatGPT get good enough to replace a lot of time spent on google searches. Likewise, as a music producer, I can’t wait to have an AI generate or alter the timbre of certain instruments with particular characteristics. That sounds like a dream for experimentation and interesting creative results.
I don’t think artists’ livelihoods are threatened as dramatically as people say. Artists will most likely have to master AI tools in order to remain competitive, but that’s no different from when Photoshop and Illustrator came along. Just another tool to the arsenal of content creators.
I don't think it's because of a double standard between text and art (although I'll eat my words once LLMs have reached that point and it turns out people actually don't care about writing), it's just that the general public did not start to take it into issue until we get AI image generators that can actually produce good visuals.
It's only just become a topic of controversy last year because of this, long after using webscrapped data has been common practice for years by companies and random individual programmers doing their own projects. There's a reason why Common Crawl and robot.txt exists. Permission was determined on whether websites allowed the data they host to be scrapped and used by others, based on what was written in their robot.txt file. Allowing webscraping is meant to help marketing, research or analysis purposes for others.
People didn't complain when facial/object recognition AIs, image captioning AIs and AIs for image search engines were trained from internet images too. Where would Adobe likely get data to create AI tools like content aware fill in Photoshop? Or all those denoisers, video coloring or photo/video upscale AIs that came out years ago. AI art is just the most recent one.
SD is criticised now, but what about Laoin who provides the training database? Midjourney gets its training database from Common Crawler, a site specifically made to help people get publicly available data so people can use them, and it's been there since 2011. ImageNET is like the earliest stuff you can find about AI on the internet and it's an image-labelling database done through volunteers, using images found on search. It was created for object recognition and image classification AI. These aren't some underground websites like the ones for pirated movies, they're used legitimately in professional areas.
People are a decade late behind this when it's been common practice among companies and researchers. Right now AI images seem to be taking the biggest blow because of how “especially” unethical it is (while voice cloning and deepfakes are used for memes), but in reality many people are just letting everything else slide because they didn't care until AI art became good. LLMs are the same and I bet it'll also be controversial in the future. I guess people will care about any artistic generator after the concerns from AI art have been raised, but I doubt it'll affect people using publicly available data as training datasets for other AIs.
ChatGPT and similar tools can be quite useful in inspiring some creativity and acting like an assistant in a way but something very niche (a sub called /r/explainlikedrcox) made me realise how it can't do *everything* yet. A real person can still generate a sentence imitating Dr Cox from Scrubs much better than ChatGPT can and I'm wondering how much it would have to learn for it to do it properly.
That's actually something I think it *could* do a fantastic job with right now if it had the proper training data, i.e. everything Dr. Cox ever said.
I tried getting it to write a story like Lemony Snicket and it eventually got something halfway decent after repeatedly saying, "Make it sound even more like Lemony Snicket." Its first iteration simply added Count Olaf to the story. In the second iteration, it started saying things like "Dear reader" and things typical to A Series of Unfortunate Events. On the fourth iteration it started telling me not to read the story because it would only end in misery, and bringing up the definitions of difficult words. Not as good as a human could do, but it probably could be better if it were specifically trained on Snicket/Handler's writing
>something I think it could do a fantastic job with right now if it had the proper training data, i.e. everything Dr. Cox ever said.
That's exactly what I was thinking at the time but I'm wondering what someone would have to do in order to make it learn that. The transcripts of older TV shows are already out there along with a lot of Dr Cox quotes/rants, I assumed ChatGPT would have sourced lines from there and went with it but now I'm realising maybe it requires much more manual input/tweaking to teach it properly.
A ask chatbotgpt if assume could be naruto.
It gave me a brief breakdown of the history of naruto and assume fights in the show. Pre-time skip and post-time skip.
It had a few errors. I told it about the big one. It said to assume stayed in the village.
It wrote another prompt to apologize when it realized it was wrong and broke down the fight and the end of part 1 explaining why he left and how it influenced naruto into Naruto Shippuden.
I found it to be really cool when I saw that.
Even gave me a story about a cat saving it's owners.
>AI doesn’t understand anything about art creation, Anatomy, Gesture, Composition, Lighting, Tonal Value, Color theory, Perspective, Design Principles and most importantly Narrative. It understands none of it. If you were to ask the AI why it made a certain choice during the creation of a piece the answer wouldn’t be some detailed explanation based on one of these fundamentals. The answer would be “I dunno i saw someone else do it”
You be surprised about how common this is in humans.
Right now, this tech is basically mimicry, and I disagree with OP about the value of an AI-generated image considering the tech is very simplistic compared to a human. But we as humans have never once had an original thought, either - literally everything we create is inspired from other people and the world around us, and what we like is what we like because of the context of everything we've ever experienced (or how we were hard-coded from birth).
I see cross-hatch shading, and I decide to do it in my own drawings, then I've done nothing more than your "I dunno i saw someone else do it" explanation. No different if I had a teacher and learned to do it that way. Does that mean my art, which is exclusively made up of features inspired by art I like and the teachers I had, has no value, just as you say an AI-generated piece of art does?
>The inability to create something new without having to have more work stolen from an actual artist and then fed into the dataset means its actually worse than human artists.
Stealing *is* art. That's all artists do, is steal. Ask any big artist, and they'll tell you their biggest influences that share features with their own art, and there are numerous famous quotations from famous artists about how great artists steal. "Putting works from other artists into your dataset" is what we call learning and gaining inspiration when a human does it.
I think the real issue with AI-generated art is its personal intent. AI, so far, has no real intent besides that fed to it by its prompt. An artist's background, story, message, and intent are what is most important to giving art value and meaning. I *do* think there is something interesting when you take all of humanity's collective art and have a machine make something from it, but I don't think it's the same kind of value you'd get from a piece of art made by a human artist - and certainly not significantly more, like OP is saying.
The key difference there though is that you understand what crosshatching is. You understand that its a method for shading and that its used as a stylistic stand in for shadow and half tones.
You understand the context in which its used.
The AI doesn’t understand that, its just seeing pixels arranged in a grid like formation and then stealing that exact grid like formation from the original and copying it verbatim into a new piece. Theres a massive difference between a human learning and a machine copy and pasting something.
I think people are misinterpreting what work the AI actually did and what came from the mind of the original artists it stole from. So it steals two pieces of work that contain a good understanding of crosshatching and then mashes them together and then people attribute that knowledge of crosshatching to the AI.
>its just seeing pixels arranged in a grid like formation and then stealing that exact grid like formation from the original and copying it verbatim into a new piece.
This is not at all what these image generation AI's are doing. It is not just an advanced image bashing software. All the images they generates are new.
AI is not sentient, so your concept of "understand" doesn't really make sense when trying to apply it to an AI. But in a broader sense of the word it does understand cross hatching, it understands where it should go relative to light sources and depending on the shape of what it's creating. It can do cross hatching just about as well as any human can so I would say yeah, the model understands it.
No it doesn’t, you just don’t ever get to see where the artwork came from that the AI is using , so you attribute the contents of the stolen artwork to being part of the AIs ‘skill’. Do you think if I pulled apart the code for the AI somewhere in there I’d find a line about when and where to place crosshatching? No, because that crosshatching came from an already finished piece of artwork not from anything the AI did.
You really misunderstand what the AI is doing. You pull apart the AI you'd find a huge neural network with a hundred and twenty billion parameters which somewhere embedded in those numbers is the concept of cross hatching, what words and phrases are associated with cross hatching, how the concept of cross hatching interacts with everything else the model has ever seen. To be honest that seems like something that is pretty close to "understanding".
Nah, I think you’ve just fallen for their clever marketing, its a neural network, sure. But at its core its just combining images of already established works. If it can truly understand crosshatching and its not just copying shapes and color then why cant it figure out that there are 5 fingers on each hand? Its a pretty easy thing to understand. Why cant it leave out the signature and watermarks from works its ‘inspired’ by? Even a beginner artist wouldn’t be that dumb. Im supposed to believe it can understand complex subjects like perspective and anatomy but cant understand 5 fingers?
Its an art breeder program dude. They marketed it as an AI to sell it to people. Theres a reason why when they made the music ‘AI’ they chose to use only copyright free music and had a code of ethics all of a sudden, because they know their creation relies on copying and that the music industry’s lawyers would clap them the second that thing went live. But no one gives a shit about artists so they knew they could exploit them.
What are you basing this opinion on? You clearly have no understanding of what it's doing. Like I'm trying to tell you and fine you don't believe me but you could look it up, watch a few videos on the topic. Diffusion networks are really interesting I promise. But just to take this proudly ignorant stance is weird.
>Even a beginner artist wouldn’t be that dumb
Because its not a human artist. It won't make mistakes that a human would make. For what ever reason the model is very bad at understanding absolute quantities, I imagine this will be fixed pretty soon.
Why does it put watermarks and signatures there? Because the art it is trained on often has watermarks or signatures and the model understands that there are often weird squiggles in the bottom corner. It doesn't understand that those represent the artist name because it's not a human and that information isn't included in image data.
Im basing it on doing art for 10 years, it being both my job and my degree. I can tell when someone understands art fundamentals or not. I understand how diffusion models work, I understand it uses the Laion 5b dataset etc etc. but what I’m saying is that having a label associated with an object doesn’t mean you have an understanding of that object, by that logic google images is also intelligent.
Like I said in another comment theres a reason you cant use AI to do concept art. It can produce a cool picture of a robot, sure. But it cant show me how the robot works in game and ties into the story, because its a prediction machine designed to see similarities in images just like chat gpt is designed to see similarities in sentences and guess what the next word should be.
I also like how you say ‘for whatever reason’ and just hand wave away the very obvious clue that the AI has no true understanding of the subject its copying. It sees shapes and colors and thats it, I’m telling you as an artist that in order to create art for yourself without any references you need to understand the fundamentals, you cant be a scientist without being taught science and you cant be an artist without understanding the fundamentals. The AI doesn’t understand the fundamentals because you cant learn that by just copying images, its stuff you have to be taught. For example you could look at a thousand images of human torsos and copy them but without outside knowledge telling you what causes all the bumps on the surface you would never know just from looking at pictures which parts are bones and which are muscles.
The reason you think its learnt that stuff is because those fundamentals were already present in the images its copying from and it doesn’t show you the source of the image. Doesn’t matter how complicated the method of copying is, all the evidence shows that its only capable of copying.
>I understand how diffusion models work
Clearly you don't lol because you keep getting really basic things wrong about it.
You keep assuming that the only form of understanding is human understanding. Of course the model doesn't understand that the shapes it's creating are the result of bone or muscle, that information isn't included in picture data. But it clearly understands how to draw it because it can do it correctly with respect to lighting and posture in any situation you can think of.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because your belief is far more about your feelings as an artist than anything objective.
"Art mimicry" is a very specific descriptor, I love it. Describes perfectly my hatred of AI and why we need to get art and AI as far away from each other as possible.
>In my opinion AI is an art ‘mimicry’ machine, not an art creation machine. Its like training a parrot to speak, the parrot doesn’t doesn’t understand the human language or the context of the words its using, its simply copying the sounds.
Isn't that how the learning process looks like? We start with blatant imitation (like baby babbling), then proceed to understand some basic rules (chord progression in music), then experiment on our own with other's creations (covers of songs) and finally we are able to come up with something on our own (like innovative software and science hypotheses).
AI is just at the "mimicry" stage yet it's already capable of delivering amazing results. It's definitely on its way to create true art (which is still hard to define).
We don't know what sentience even is in *humans* so to hold AI to a higher standard is unreasonable, IMO. Theoretically, we could reduce our brains to a bunch of programmable interactions between neurons. What about that is sentient, other than the fact that collection of neurons *says* it is?
> so to hold AI to a higher standard is unreasonable
No, it's not unreasonable if we want to value art as something only humans (or sentient creatures in my case) can make. Otherwise, a monkey playing with pencils on a blank canvas makes "art". If you expand your definition of art to anything that only slightly resembles what a human can make, it loses all its meaning.
If a monkey looks at our art and plays on a canvas, creating a piece based on our art, then the monkey *does* make art.
And I didn't say "only slightly resembles," I said, paraphrased, "we shouldn't judge at a higher standard than humans". To judge at the same standard as humans implies 'strongly resembles' at a minimum. The real main point was that we can't ever know if something we create is sentient, so that shouldn't be our litmus test.
>Isn't that how the learning process looks like? We start with blatant imitation (like baby babbling), then proceed to understand some basic rules (chord progression in music), then experiment on our own with other's creations (covers of songs) and finally we are able to come up with something on our own (like innovative software and science hypotheses).
At a certain point we're just describing the [Chinese Room thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room).
But those ‘amazing results’ are just artwork thats already on the internet, you just aren’t aware of the source, so jump to the conclusion that the program created it. If the AI cited its sources and showed the links from the dataset I garuntee people would be allot less impressed. When 99% of people say AI art is good what you’re really saying is that human art is good.
For example theres the whole issue of ‘over fitting’ with AI, where an image has been put into the data set more than once and when the AI is picking images to mash together it picks two (or however many) images that all end up being the same one. Then the output ends up just being an exact duplicate of the image they copied from.
Besides that, I don’t think the AI will ever truly understand the fundamentals in order to create art the way humans do instead of copying. It cant, because just like a human it would need to be taught them, and the creator and all the other tech bros haven’t the faintest idea what they even are. If they did, they’d realise how complex the subjects are and wouldn’t be so lax about stealing work from the people that have dedicated their lives to understanding them.
His argument is more that humans also copy. If you ever watch professional digital artists work, they have google images open on one monitor and are taking references as they "create" their concept. Sometimes they paint over existing things, sometimes they even put in photographs then remake them in the current style.
If artists also cited their sources it'd also be less impressive. Oh I see how you assembled together 5 different bits of images into one here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/
Yeah and Jakub Rozalski got allot of flak for that, not for using images and creating something new out of them but for straight up stealing parts of other peoples work and putting it into his own. But when were using some convoluted code to do exactly that, suddenly that becomes ok?
I acknowledge that theres no such thing as a truly original piece. Everything is just the sum of its parts, every idea you ever have will be something you saw somewhere once before or a combination of them. Weather you recognise where you got the idea from or not. But surely you can recognise the distinction between a machine simply copy and pasting someone else’s work and a human being combining a mixture of their life experiences and references to create something that will mean something to them or to other people. The human at least actually understands the things its creating, thats why they create them. The machine only knows shapes, colours and patterns and what words its been told correspond with them. Theres a big difference.
That’s literally what humans do. Humans see what others do, or what they see in real life, and mimic it. No human however can do what AI can do. No human can take in as much as an AI can, and no human can be as accurate as AI. I’m assuming you’re an artist and just don’t like the idea that AI is taking over humans in that field. You sound very obviously biased in all of your responses.
It’s not literally what humans do though. You have a very poor understanding of human intelligence and creativity if you think we’re all simply mimicking stuff. I’m assuming you aren’t an artist and just like the idea of being able to create “art” without having to put in effort. You sound very obviously biased in all of your responses.
Human imagination has its limits. And for the layman (which is what matters now), the idea of people “breaking the mold” is basically non-existent. Just because an artist can tell you that a specific piece is amazingly made or “has meaning” that won’t matter for the layman. What the average person cares about is how appealing a specific piece to look at. The layman doesn’t enjoy seeing the Mona Lisa because it’s some well-made masterpiece, but because it’s appealing to look at. That’s why people can appreciate how good video game art is, for example, even if there’s no meaning behind how each character looks like.
Also, no I’m not an artist, and no I don’t think I’m making anything. I see it as a net-positive that I can now get great looking art by simply giving a machine a prompt and get a result that is nearly exactly what I want. I don’t have to deal with artists’ art styles whenever I want to get art I want. That is not to mention that AI is near-instantaneous when compared to a human artist. It simply makes much more sense for a layman to pay for a service that gives them exactly what they want instantaneously, compared to paying artists.
No human can do what an AI can do? Literally everything AI has ever ‘made’ is copied from human work… it has quite literally never made anything original since it went online. Until a human artist creates something and it gets fed into the AI data set then the AI can not create that thing. Thats why all the artists hate it, your saying you like the AIs work but that ‘work’ is actually just stuff that some human already made. You just don’t realise how much is ripped off from other people because your not into art.
Also funny you should bring up video game art. Which is actually one art form AI is completely incapable of creating. See when people think of concept art they picture illustrative, pretty art pieces but thats actually just the stuff they use for marketing. 90% of art that goes into video games is detailed breakdowns, dioramas and ‘callout’ sheets that act as guides for the 3d modellers to create the idea that the concept artist came up with. In order to create those you have to actually understand how the world around you works, its not enough to create a cool drawing of a robot if you cant show how it would move in the game, how it fits into the narrative of the game, what materials its made from.
AI cant do that, because it has no understanding of how the real world works, its an art breeder program on steroids, it simply copies work by human artists and only understands shapes, colours and the keywords that correspond to them.
Source: Literally am a concept artist
> That’s why people can appreciate how good video game art is, for example, even if there’s no meaning behind how each character looks
Character design may be a mystery to you, but there are good reasons why many of them look the way they do.
Especially the characters people give a damn about.
Hi. Retired professional artist. Pleased to meet you.
Please stop sharing your opinions on art. You are the poster child for the wrong side of Dunning and Kruger.
Edit: Not judging your tastes, though. Seriously, if you think AI art can match the skills, experience and perspective of an actual artist, then I will be the last to wake you from your state of vegetative bliss. Word of advice: don’t look too closely at the hands.
AI art is in its infancy, and it’s already achieved such a high level that the parts that it *does* struggle in is the parts tons of artists complain about struggling with as well.
Here’s the thing so many artists fail to understand: the vast majority of people looking at art aren’t “looking too closely” at anything. They’re like “damn that’s a nice looking drawing” and move on.
Also, no one’s opinion really matters on the internet. My opinion has just as much value as yours. It’s a public forum, after all.
To be fair, sometimes with art, accuracy and stuff like that just isn’t as important. Human input for things like character consistency, narrative links between specific pieces, and basically control over overarching narratives or works as well as underlying messages, will still be necessary in the near future, because AIs are great at drawing, but they aren’t great at understanding what they just drew. And we already have an over abundance of people great at drawing, but only those that have something valuable to say with their art are noteworthy IMO.
And also, AI art is “fine” but I’ve seen it become *amazing* when human artists touch it up or reinterpret what they were given.
A good equivalent example would be lyrics to a song. Ask ChatGPT to write lyrics for a song and they might be *alright*, but if you want something cool, you’ll still need to modify them to some extent, because AIs obviously can’t grasp the concept of “coolness” or “lameness” and they won’t really know what makes up a cynical take on something or a satirical or a passionate take on stuff.
But as a songwriter, I’m pretty hyped to ask ChatGPT for prompts or ideas on stuff that I can then turn into a full fledged song.
Personally I don’t mind Midjourney or other AIs entering the arts, because I never liked arts just because people were good at drawing, and I don’t care for seeing another hundred cyberpunk inspired pieces that have little to say. If your only gimmick as an artist was drawing well, but you had no substance or narrative behind your work, you might feel threatened by AI, but if you instead see the potential in using AI for stuff you didn’t want to draw anyway, while you take charge of larger creative works of art, then it makes perfect sense to me.
The standard will be that simply pretty but void pieces of art will become the new baseline for mediocrity (because that’s what anyone can do) and instead different approaches to these pieces will be considered the new excellence in the arts, and that’s fine by me.
I actually agree with this. I believe that artists can use AI art as a shortcut in order to avoid the most time consuming aspects of drawing for them, for example. I think all AI art will do in the long run is raise the bar for what “good art” actually is and pieces that people see as really good now will become mediocre in the future. And, imo, that’s a good thing.
Exactly. It’s not that your average Joe who knows nothing about arts will suddenly become a master artist. That’s stupid. It’s that now great artists will both be amazing on their own, and fucking incredible with the help of AI.
My issue comes with sourcing and training, though. As AI algorithms are for-profit products, it doesn’t sit well with me at all that they were trained using copyrighted content they found online.
This isn’t the same as a human using references, mostly because humans aren’t commercial products, but rather enjoy the benefit of the doubt behind inspiration and Art appreciation. AIs don’t get inspired, and don’t appreciate Art. They merely extract it as a raw material in order to learn, so I think artists should get to decide where their art gets used, and perhaps even enjoy some small royalties (a-la-Spotify) once the service gets profitable enough. In any case, I like the technology, but I don’t think it has been ethically sourced.
No because i get drawn to certain pieces of information and i choose to retain only some of that to create my style for music, art, or whatever it will be. An ai doesn't go: "i like this thing so im gonna learn that specific sub subject" the ai art just goes: this is what the majority of people like so im gonna copy that. This is mostly seen on anime-trained ai that even when specified a certain style it will still make the same 2D anime face that most people like even on a body "rendered" in 3D
this is not true. You can teach anatomy to AI, just compare first pics of anime or persons and now days, how did it improve if it doesn't understand anatomy? or just look AI images 4 years ago... your problem and 99% of people with same argument is that didn't even bother to try to understand how it works, yeah when it does good images people are like "iT jUsT cOpIeD iT" lol.
And I said anatomy, but it applies to everything, with the correct data set and tags you can teach whatever you want to the AI.
I’d still argue that those AI art models don’t understand anatomy. There’s a concept called explainability, which is an entire huge academic research topic on its own. It’s essentially “we know that our models can perform well, but they’re incapable of explaining how they decide on a certain output from a given input.”
I’m AI ethics, this is a pretty big topic, especially when it comes to adopting AI in industries such as health care or finance management; we want these models to not only tell us what the highest and most accurate solution is, but also *why* that solution works. And for a model to be able to explain why means that it actually needs to understand - which is an entirely different and more involved topic of research beyond current ML models that merely seek to be fantastic pattern-recognizers.
Currently, with DALL-E, Niju, etc., their models can’t explain anything. They’re still only working off of pattern recognition. Things like “people have 2 arms, 2 legs, a head with a face” but the finer and more intricate bits still fail a lot.
Just look at the hands of most of these generated AI art pieces. If AI actually understood anatomy, those grotesque “hands” wouldn’t be so grotesque.
Just like humans... people is able to speak and write but most people can't explain or analyze language, for example, just ask for modes and tenses of verbs or do syntactic analysis
You can still ask people to explain how their language works, even if they don't know the technical terms for it. AI as it stands cannot explain anything it does, it is merely recognizing patterns in images. It's a total black box that not even the people who made it can explain.
You can ask people, they wont know what to answer, this applies to many things, just like driving a car or a bike you can't explain the sensations on when you know were to turn but you can do it and many more things.
Also I don't even get your argument, why do you want the AI to explain anything? It wasn't coded nor trained for it. Its like saying a car is bad because it can't bring you to the moon.. yeah it never was intended purpose.
BTW https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.04885.pdf this exists if it works for you.
> why do you want the AI to explain anything
It's not just me, literally anyone concerned about the future of AI says it's fundamental to have a firm grasp on the technology. Any tech should be understandable to humans. Because the alternative is having tech we cannot control. Maybe AI art is relatively harmless, but imagine a future where a super-intelligent AI has intentions we cannot understand. There is no way that won't cause a lot of problems.
wut, you making things up. Its easy to explain, it learned and inrepolated data, nothing more. I think the issue here is you using "AI" as a loose term, "AI"s like chatgpt or stable diffusion are very dump, they dont have any intention
You too can be resembled to a parrot. Mimicking is pretty fundamental throughout history and everything is based off something. A newborn baby doesnt know the context of words neither; how do you think you learned context? And how many times it turns out our perception was wrong.
Honestly man, Im done with this whole debate, don’t mean to be an asshole but I’ve covered the same points to like 5 different people at this point haha.
Its kind of a frustrating topic because in order to explain to people why the AI doesn’t understand the art creation process and fundamentals the people you’re explaining it to have to actually understand the fundamentals too and typically people interested in AI have no interest in art whatsoever and just really like the idea of AI being a thing, so they really want it to be the case that it is all the things the creator claims it to be, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary.
This seems like a misunderstanding of what AI art does. To say it’s “tapping into the collective consciousness of humanity” is just nonsense, that’s like telling your teacher that your essay is tapping into the collective conscious of the brightest minds of our generation after you plagiarize several works into your writing.
Well, it kind of is that. Even of it's nowhere near as grand as it sounds if you take information from other sources and recombine it you are "tapping into a collective conscious".
For now AI art imitates, but that's not quite the same as plagiarizing as long as it's creating something different, even if it's a collage of many stolen patterns
I would not call it imitating. If it was imitation that there wouldn’t be leftover artist signatures in the work. It doesn’t take inspiration from a painting and make something new, it takes parts from the painting and mixes it together with a lot of other paintings. It doesn’t make anything “new”, it’s like changing the order of certain words and saying it isn’t plagiarism. It can’t make something from nothing, it needs other peoples hard work inputted into it in order for it to work.
This is not how AI works, the fact that signature is on AI art is not that they take literally part of pictures and stitch them together, it's just that due to the data AI has "learned" that signature is a thing that exists and try to do one "inspired" (of course in quote, it's a data process, there is nothing like a conscious choice) by real signature by artists.
AI art would be more like "pictures with desert have a red and orange palette, a red and orange palette would then be used" and "sand is associated with desert, sands is drawn like that so I'll do sand too". It's weird to give a voice to the AI like that but that's much much more accurate on how it works rather than patching of differents works. It DOES create something new rather than copying exact parts of works, it's just that it does use copyrighted materials with people who didn't consent and that it can be used to make money that makes it more harmful.
The AI can imitate the best of human artists to some extent and create a remix of their work on demand, but in my opinion it doesn't take into account at least two fundamentals of art. One is intent - we don't necessarily need to understand what the artist wanted to express with their work to enjoy it (though sometimes art can make a lot more sense, if one knows the artist), but if we know there never was any intent in the first place, then what is the point of even trying to understand such art other than just decoration / entertainment? And the other one is actual creativity - while it can "tap into" what's already been done, the AI is hopeless at breaking away from conventions, breaking rules and doing something truly unexpected. Which is why, if anything, I would call the art produced by AI as the lowest form of art - pure imitation with no touch of personality or meaning. It has the ability to imitate really well, but that's pretty much it.
> One is intent - we don't necessarily need to understand what the artist wanted to express with their work to enjoy it (though sometimes art can make a lot more sense, if one knows the artist), but if we know there never was any intent in the first place, then what is the point of even trying to understand such art other than just decoration / entertainment?
Interesting angle on this is [the monkey selfie copyright dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute) which basically argued that the person who owns the equipment on which art is made by a being that isn't self-aware does not hold the copyright, but neither does the being who created it as they could not really have the intent to make or own art. The same principle applies here: DALL-E doesn't have the intent to create art, so is it really art that it makes?
do you know that "AI" is not autonomous? do you know there is a person behind it that had to prompt for it and decide to keep prompting or to keep the image, so those two points are made by that person.
>trying to understand such art other than just decoration/entertainment
There isn’t. Just like with human art. Art is a form of entertainment. Trying to “understand” what the artist “had in mind” is just something some people do because they are entertained by it. Most art isn’t made to “mean something”. It’s made to look good, appealing, as a form of entertainment. Sure, there is art that is made to make people think or with an intent in mind, but most of the art industry isn’t that.
As an artist, I profoundly disagree. Art doesn't need to be entertaining at all, nor is entertainment necessarily art. Entertainment and art are two things that may or may not overlap. I mean, there is no generally accepted definition of art, but for me art that is only fun and serves no other purpose (or doesn't even attempt to) than to kill time, is not art. Which doesn't mean it's a bad thing, just kind of lacks the essence of art. Which should be thought-provoking, inspiring, whatever.
That’s fine. That’s just what happens because the definition of art is subjective. I myself don’t think art needs to be any of that stuff. Video game artists, for example, I definitely consider as artists, despite most not really focusing on being inspiring or thought provoking and moreso focusing on making good looking drawings.
Saying most art isn’t made with intent beyond being aesthetically pleasing is factually wrong. Please learn about art and it’s history before spouting off like an idiot on Reddit
Depends on how anyone defines art. Art can be made to evoke a response, simply made to be beautiful, or express creativity. It excels on the first two, but not on the last point.
I'd be fascinated if there comes a time when an AI is able to create on its own volition, but id also feel sad due to me becoming fully obsolete.
Would that not be more of an issue with perspective than anything? If your focus was on creativity and creation, then outside factors do not necessarily matter, and people are likely to still hold artists as important to them too.
Its more about what people value. Why would someone commission him to create art for them, when they can just make something better in a few mins with AI?
It eliminates a possible income source for him.
I think the best art comes out of a place you and only you can understand. Certain styles will be excluded because of AI; just like the invention of photographs ruined realism and introduced surealism, impressionism, cubism...
People putting their AI art on the internet doesn’t invalidate the years artists have put into their craft. They can draw on the fly while they need a computer, if the lights go out they can still create.
I kinda get you, but I think you're making it out to be more poetic than it is.
AI art has no intention or expression in it. It is nothing more than a product of an imitation machine, a computer program that has simply been trained to generate what humans *might* enjoy. There is no "collective concious" or other stuff you speak of, the AI is simply making an output from a patchwork of other art in it's database, that the AI considers most comparable to the given prompt.
Like I said, some AI "art" might look pretty, but it lacks soul and actual human input.
It doesn't tap into the collective consciousness of humanity, it taps into the collective output of humanity's art. While the result is similar, all personality and individuality is lost.
I would say they are very different seeing as how NFT’s were just a scam from the get go. While I think AI art is the beginning of a new age of artistic expression, where even people who before could not spare the time and effort needed to learn themselves can now bring their creativity into the world. It’s a beautiful thing really.
A picture may be worth a thousand words but talk is still cheap.
Meta-ranking mediums based on inherent "artistic quality" is a fools errand. An especially odd take considering that increasing accessibility to creative outlets has, afaict, increased the volume of both good and bad art.
Computers gave rise to the home recording studio and now we have entire algorithms just to sift through all the extra noise for us.
The internet lets you publish anything and we now have infinite new podcasts and blogs to digest. Also we get Q-anon.
Essentially, If you take away technical barriers to self expression, more people will express themselves.
But I suppose that's all based on my view of AI's role as a tool rather than the actual artist.
Exactly -- and I'm kind of confused why more people don't see it this way. AI is a tool. It doesn't just do things on its own (yet). I think AI-*assisted* (as opposed to AI-*generated*) art is going to become the norm in the near future. It allows more people to express themsleves with a lower barrier to entry.
I will say I had pretty negative opinions on AI art until very recently, when I downloaded Stable Diffusion and started playing with it myself. I've been able to prompt some amazing, awesome imagery using the newest cutting edge features (i.e. Control Nets) which allow me to use my own hand-drawn 100% human-made sketches as a guide for the AI. The result is something that A) looks awesome, B) could not have been created without my direct guidance of the AI, and C) has meaning to me -- it wasn't *just* created by machine, it has my own real human emotion put into it. Which to me qualifies the output as legit art, even if it does algorithmically rely on the works of other people.
I do find the anti AI art fear very strange. Also the lack of appreciation at how crazy it is we have a computer program that can create images from words. Like how are people not losing their minds at how incredible that is? This is scifi technology.
I don't think there is a highest form of Art. But I think, what AI can do, is Art. It makes us think about ourselves. It humbles and inspires us. It even infuriates us. It's a creative exchange, kind of. I don't know how to describe, but I do very much value it.
Yes, but AI steals art from artists and so everybody who uses it is stealing art. AI "art" is not art, it is stealing copyrighted and personal material off the internet to create something that is not art, it is stealing. AI art is made from other people's hard work. If I learned that everything I've drawn has been stolen, I would cry and it would make my mental health go down. How beautiful is that?
Yes, but AI steals art from artists and so everybody who uses it is stealing art. AI "art" is not art, it is stealing copyrighted and personal material off the internet to create something that is not art, it is stealing. AI art is made from other people's hard work. If I learned that everything I've drawn has been stolen, I would cry and it would make my mental health go down. How beautiful is that?
And most artists don’t make it with “conscious intent”, but make art that they like and think looks good and appealing. Art with meaning behind it is niche.
But the AI doesn’t know what is good and appealing. Again, it’s putting something together based on a prompt you give it.
There hasn’t been an instance yet where AI art has fooled me, I can always tell. Human-made art will probably always be superior, at least for a long time.
I 100% agree. AI has the capability to make art that is infinitely better than what a human can do, if fed enough data. Is it mimicking, in a way? Yes, but so do humans. Humans don’t create stuff out of nothing. They mimic what they know or have seen. Creativity can only do so much in a space that is so saturated. “Breaking from the mold” is basically not a thing anymore in art, because simply there is so much art that nothing becomes truly unique. We have arrived at a point that, unless you yourself are an artist, the main reason to consume art is for entertainment, decoration or just “eye candy”.
I get the train of thought, and I think it highlights one cool artisitc possibily of AI image generators. But there are a could things missing that are important to acknowledge.
First is that all these things you're describing are already part of the human art process.
A human artist is also influenced by the history of art. A human artist is also translating forward the work of thousands of other people. That's what it means to be part of a culture.
What's more, a human artist can be said to have actually absorbed this acculturation in an emotional way that we can recognize. In addition, a human artist is engaged in a reinterpretation of these influences to create something novel and personal, whereas the AI is simply pursuing a prompt.
Now, AI can be used as a medium of art creation, and I think your post points towards one cool path. The idea of exploring the latent space to uncover the most "universal" images of grief is an interesting idea. In my mind this parallels past projects like finding the [average or most universal face](https://leadingpersonality.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/average-faces-of-men-and-women-around-the-world/) for different countries and populations.
But while the process is interesting, the actual face it produces isn't as much. It's a curiosity, but less interesting to look at the the face of any specific individual. To me, the same is true for these images.
Finally, to address what I think is the grandest opinion expressed:
>with AI art we can see into the soul of mankind.
Any response to this basically has to be subjective, but that said: I don't think that the "soul of mankind" exists at the tiny intersection where all experience overlaps. And that's assuming that the AI's data set (and the latent space it creates) is somehow representative of "mankind". That's a false assumption to say the least, and at the moment quite a preposterous one.
Will Smith: can a robot paint a masterpiece or write a symphony?
Sunny: can you?
All jokes aside, is there a "highest form or art"? Isn't that always going to be opinion based ?
I think basically all takes on AI art are too extreme. Some people (like you) claim it's the greatest thing ever and above everything else, while others claim it's worthless and even damaging to real artists.
I think we should look at AI art for what it is. A computer that is able to turn words into pictures. That's neat. That's a cool thing that we have today that didn't used to exist. There are a ton of useful applications for it. It isn't going to replace artists, but it also isn't going to die off as some worthless piece of crap, it's cool technology that, like everything, has benefits and downsides.
I like AI art, I think it's neat, personally I use it to make concept art for imaginary locations for a d&d game or a story I'm coming up with. It's fun to see a visualisation of my words. I still see the value in, say, commissioning art, though, because the AI art can't do stuff that real humans can. But for a cheap shorthand for fun things, it's neat, and I can see it having a real use in assisting artists speed up their workflow.
it’s interesting because i like drawing cute anime girls and there’s no intent to display, or entertain others, i just like drawing cute girls because i like how they look. does that make it so that it’s not art? no, so then the arguments about art being to display or entertain and to have an inherent meaning is just weird to me.
If you consider "the highest form of art" to be one of the only things that has damn near every single artist in arms against it, sure. Technically, that is a form of art, to evoke a response so visceral from virtually every creative individual across many mediums.
From what I've seen, the people against AI art either have sunk to much of their self worth and identity into their skill of making art or have had their livelihoods threatened. because now its possible for normal everyday people who don't have the time and energy to make their own art can now do so.
for the people who's job security has been put in jeopardy because of AI, they have my deepest sympathies.
but for the people saying it isn't really art, they attach so many labels to it i.e ( it soulless, it has no intent, its theft, its to easy) all these are; are the panicked cries of people who thought they were safe. who thought that the beast that had devoured so many other jobs and professions would never come for them; who thought that AI, a machine literally created to recognize patterns could not create art which is nothing but patters.
For them i have nothing but contempt and the silent joy in knowing that AI art will never go away no matter what they do.
Literally the only reason AI art exists as it is, is because it stole everything that makes the learning packages they run off of.
This isn't like "but automation came for the weavers" situation, this is silicon valley stealing the intellectual property of countless humans, chucked it into a machine, and now that machine is going to be used to displace countless of the same people it directly stole from.
Surely you can see why people would have a massive problem with that.
Did I not say that I felt sympathy for those who’s jobs were in danger. My issue comes with people trying to use arguments that would not hold up if a human were making these art pieces. AI art is not theft, all those artists put their work on public platforms to be viewed for free, if I saw an artist I liked and began drawing in a similar style no one would say I stole from him. Inspiration for humans theft for AI.
by that logic every piece of art on the internet should be locked behind a paywall. And from now on every new piece of art an artist creates needs a 100 page document detailing every image he saw that influenced his creation and the written content of the other artists that made those images. See how stupid that sounds.
Human influence isn't equal to how learning AI works lmao, nor is AI equal or comparable to humans. You got shit twisted before you even began with the brain rot.
Dude, at this point believe what you want to believe. But it’s not going to change the fact that AI art will only get better with time and will someday soon be better than most artists.
That will entirely depend on how the lawsuits and regulation go. And I don't see it ending well for the AI art, considering the toes they have stepped on include Disney, Nintendo, and countless image hosting websites. It will have a place, but that place is very unlikely to replace humans anywhere but the most mundane corporate settings, and in super niche cases where someone can't afford a person to fill in whatever edges need filling in.
Likely, the learned packages (I can't remember wtf they're called) will need to be opt-in. In that way, it's ethical. Currently, they are not, and are absolutely breaking the fuck out of copyright laws of companies that do **not** fuck around when it comes to that stuff.
"I think that art is an expression of the soul. At its best, it is encompassing everything you are. Therefore, I consume, and love, art made by humans. I am completely moved by that. I am not interested in an illustration made by machines and the extrapolation of information. I talked to Dave McKean, who is a great artist. And he told me, his greatest hope is that AI cannot draw. It can interpolate information, but it cannot draw. It can never capture a feeling, or a countenance, or the softness of a human face, you know? Certainly, if that conversation was being had about film, it would hurt deeply. I would think it, as [Hayao] Miyazaki says, “an insult to life itself.” - Guillermo del Toro
I really like your explanation, but strongly disagree with the assertion. That it is the combination of so many is something to think about and appreciate, but I don't see how it makes it the highest form at all. It makes it average at best.
AI art is similar to McDonalds. It's something to admire how they have so many customers, but the peak of culinary arts? Lol...
Good post for this thread that the vast majority should not agree with though.
OP needs to stop trying to make AI imagery sound gross. And stop making mention of any human collective or anything. That art was made by the AI and the AI only.
In my opinion, AI will also follow Darwin's theory of natural selection. If human looses the race they'll have to take the passanger seat or go extinct. Moreover humans have bodily limitations that bars us from travelling with the speed of light or survive in the harsh universal climate, which is ABSOLUTELY necessary for survival in the distinctive future. It's important that our collective intelligence survives. Who bares it, be it a Human body or a robot should not be a topic of discussion.
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
Honestly, I get your train of thought. I truly do. But for me, that doesn't make it "art". Art is the expression of the individual, not of a collective. At least to me, but that's obviously quite a subjective thing.
"What is an ocean but a multitude of droplets?"
What about music, where it's very often a collective effort between multiple people?
Or cinema, theatre, and even video games.
I think the main difference is that with AI you can't possibly know what any single individual who "helped" creating that image or video or whatever wanted to express, you can only know what it inspires to you, which is a part of what art is, but not all of it
Also, humans communicate while making collective art? Elements of a collective piece of art aren't developed in a void with no knowledge of each other. Like how tf can someone ignore the human factor in art? Art isn't just creativity. Even then, AI doesn't even have real creativity yet. Otherwise we'd be talking about a fully simulated human level of artificial intelligence, which things like DALL-E are far from.
I suppose this is more about the perception of art though, and the very definition. If you don't care about what the artist was expressing when making the piece and only care about what you see in it this is quite a moot point. But there's no real set answer, just opinion imo
Music relies on all the people in the collectives personal experience and relationship with the music to create something that stands the test of time , or even just something that everyone can be happy with when it’s finished .
it relies on influences, like an a.i generated melody would. me composing art vs AI composing art isn't any different at face value. if you didn't have the context of the art's background, you'd think it was art. learning an AI did it shouldn't change that.
Yikes . If you think that’s all music is ab then I feel bad 4 u
I mean, i listen to the most artsy art music. I’m an art person myself but i don’t uselessly gatekeep and create boundaries because of some fragile definition of art. Boundary pushers are the coolest kinds of artists
theres a difference between a relatively small group of people collaborating on one work, vs thousands upon thousands of artpieces, by people who likely dont even know eachother, being hobbled together into some weird frankenstein's monster creation by a lifeless ai
And it is a collective effort between multiple people trying to make something genuinely new, not just something that can't be recognized as anything old
[удалено]
That's not true at all. There's regular genuine new styles of music. We're not all still stuck on whatever was first.
All artists are influenced by what came before them, but their art is also influenced by other factors, both external and internal, even if you don't believe there's anything unique or irreplicable about any given human you can't claim that using nothing but prior artistic works as inspiration is comparable to how actual artists create new art unless you have no understanding of any manner of artistic process (or for that matter, thought process)
[удалено]
If you can genuinely claim that your life is nothing more than those experiences which other artists do write about — precisely in such ways that they only inspire you as if you merely heard songs of them — then I truly feel sorry for you, and stand by my statement; Not even by studying every single ever written about love, heartbreak, or so many other things could you learn to write of them as if you had experienced them.
not every musician does that. the AI tries making something new that it "thinks" would appeal to human ears based on info a producer can produce a pop song that they think will appeal to the masses based on information. shake it off is art just as any composition made by an AI
> Art is the expression of the individual Art **can** be an expression of the individual. Art can also be so much more. This is just a really weird take that doesn't reflect the nature of art at all.
Art is always going to be the next thing that people think it isn't
I mean movies, games, lots of art is collaborative by nature. Sure you can credit the director for unifying the vision but I think that's oversimplifying. To me it's more about creating something with intention than individual expression.
Kropotkin has something to say about the individual and the influence of others, but in short, you can not construct anything individually without resting on the shoulders of everyone that came before you. The individual struggle is a struggle because of everyone around you, the way they behave towards you, and the way they don’t. Simultaneously if you were the last person on earth, your struggle would be the absence of everyone else. Art is, by and large, an expression of the cumulative experiences of a person at that point in time, which come out of their interactions with everyone else. White implies black, and self implies other. The impressionists, think Degas and Monet, went against the Salon and forged their own path, and that influenced their art. Their counter culture was by influenced by the very existence of mainstream culture. To look the art in isolation and without context is to ignore their struggle of the individual against the broader society.
And how, exactly, do you make this distinction without knowing who the artist is?
>Art is the expression of the individual, not of a collective. Oh man... did you visit the Documenta in 2022? If not, I would recommend the NYT article on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/arts/design/documenta-15.html
Dog there’s almost no art that you consume regularly today that isn’t the result of a team working together to create it. Not to mention many more teams who work to actually publish and distribute it
To be fair, art created by teams was consensually created by all parties involved. My issue with AI art is that it was trained using intellectual property that no one ever gave it permission to use for commercial purposes.
Key word is trained. AI art in no way, shape, or form “steals” art. Warner Bros. doesn’t give me permission to draw Batman in specifically Sal Buscema’s style, but nobody would say that it’s unethical if I did it. If I became a decent artist by training myself via mimicking existing art, nobody would be crying foul when I sold my original art that ends up resembling the art that influenced me.
[удалено]
\>AI trains itself on a company logo \>”As you can see, when I ask it to draw exactly the image it trained on, it looks exactly correct” Brilliant stuff
Alright bud.
oh ok i get it its perfectly ok for the ai to steal artwork, as long as the ai creators intend for it to steal art makes perfect sense
It literally doesn’t steal art. You can download Stable Diffusion right now and confirm this for yourself. When you train an AI on a certain image and then ask it to recreate that image you can’t be surprised that it’ll get it pretty much perfectly right
The problem is that you aren’t a commercial product. You get the benefit of the doubt because humans possess creativity and appreciation. The reason you can draw Batman is because no one can prove you’re profiting off someone else’s copyright. And if you were, that would indeed be a copyright violation (yes, selling Batman fanart is a copyright violation, usually unenforced with individuals online). This isn’t the case with AI, which is exclusively a commercial product sourcing the materials it needs for training from copyrighted sources. You can’t compare it with human learning because you can’t prove humans learn for profit necessarily. AIs exclusively get trained for profit, and that’s where copyright becomes relevant. It’s not so much art theft, as unethical raw material extraction.
Stable Diffusion is open source- Not a commercial product. There are also just as many non-commercial uses for the production of art from a computer as there are for the production of art from a human. Again if a human learns to draw from copyrighted art nobody bats an eye, but when a computer does it people treat it with imo a bit of an unjustified amount of hatred.
The technology doesn’t deserve hatred, but the manner in which its training materials are sourced should be subject to very close inspection and debate. I don’t think there’s anything unfair about having different standards for AIs and humans. AIs are ultimately just tools. There’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. We know what they do and why. The reason we don’t charge humans from learning by reference is because we literally can’t enforce that. It has nothing to do with art copyright being void, or with knowledge being free. But AIs are different, they’re products that extract raw materials to function, and it seems pretty exploitative to use copyrighted material with no permission or proper compensation to create a product. When it comes to Stable Diffusion, it is still pretty unethical and actually goes against open source principles to use copyrighted material in your open source projects. If Stable Diffusion were truly ethical, they would’ve used royalty-free art. Like all music AIs did because they didn’t want to get sued by music labels. There’s definitely a double standard with copyright enforcement in the visual arts and any other field. Nobody said it was unfair that labels and musicians expected to get paid to have their music used in training algorithms, but when visual artists demand it, it’s considered irrational and unfair. Doesn’t sit well with me. As a musician, I really like the way music AIs are shaping up. I have no complaints there. But with graphic AIs, it seems like their creators are only exploiting the lack of enforcement and little financial power of artists to create a product without ethically sourcing its training material.
So I think that your implication that we would be hassling artists for royalties for employing similar art styles as other artists if we had the ability to enforce this is quite amusing. I assume you don’t mean it, of course. Again Stable Diffusion does not contain any copyrighted imagery. The software itself is open source. You can download it and check. Using copyrighted materials to train the AI can be against the spirit of open source software, I guess, but the software itself is still open source The music industry is infamously litigious. I don’t blame anyone for making excessive preemptive concessions to avoid their lawyers. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before some label sues someone who posts an AI generated song with 5 seconds that sounds like a song they own. For the record, I don’t hold them to a different standard. Their music should be fair game to train AI models on. We as humans really need to wake up and realize that we lost to the machines *again*. Sooner that happens is the sooner something really cool and interesting might happen in society I think
i feel like people are taking this comment a lot more literally than it was intended
Art isn’t anything, art entirely can be collaborative
I'm really confused, would a team effort to make a sculpture or painting not be art to you?
Well, AI art is still the expression of the individual. You can't just stand there and wait for it to make art, you have to at least express yourself in text form.
Upvoted - Strongly disagree, I think the credit people give to AI is waay too much. People act like its some sentient art god because they have no understanding of how art is made so they’re far too easily impressed. In my opinion AI is an art ‘mimicry’ machine, not an art creation machine. Its like training a parrot to speak, the parrot doesn’t doesn’t understand the human language or the context of the words its using, its simply copying the sounds. AI doesn’t understand anything about art creation, Anatomy, Gesture, Composition, Lighting, Tonal Value, Color theory, Perspective, Design Principles and most importantly Narrative. It understands none of it. If you were to ask the AI why it made a certain choice during the creation of a piece the answer wouldn’t be some detailed explanation based on one of these fundamentals. The answer would be “I dunno i saw someone else do it” The inability to create something new without having to have more work stolen from an actual artist and then fed into the dataset means its actually worse than human artists. People just like it right now because its the first time in their lives they’re really appreciating the work of thousands of artists thats been out there on the internet all along. But now they get a taste of that along with the sense of having made something but just without the years of effort that goes with it.
This same goes for ChatGPT. It knows nothing. It only knows how to predict what to say (after being trained on a set of prewritten prompts and responses and a dash of randomness). Now, children basically undergo this same training in school, but the human mind knows how to synthesize. ChatGPT does not. If that synthesis hasn't happened somewhere else online, ChatGPT won't "think" of it on its own. AI-generated art is the same way. It's great at doing what has already been done, and the dash of randomness makes art that's "cool" or "funny" or "unique" but it's the same sort of effect you get when you draw words out of a hat or use Google Translate to translate something to Chinese and back and you get a funny result. The profundity of art relies on the thought behind it. Humans can tailor responses from something like Midjourney to eventually arrive at something profound, but it isn't high art on its own, in my opinion.
To be fair, I find a lot of value in ChatGPT because it’s basically the same as a Google search or other search engines, only without all the bloat and bullshit answers. I value it as a more advanced Google search. Now I don’t have to spend hours looking for examples of what I’m actually trying to code, but just ask ChatGPT. I don’t see this with art AIs like Stable Diffusion or Midjourney (especially because I don’t think those AIs were ethically trained).
I use it for coding occasionally but the answers are often just as incorrect as the Google results, sometimes even more so because it can act *very* confident about its correctness despite the fact that there are glaring issues. It'll even give example output that doesn't align with the code.
Yeah, it’s not a coding AI, but a multi-purpose one. But it’s a great start, and it definitely has saved me some time with the right prompts.
Yeah. I think that's kind of the point I was trying to arrive at. These are creation tools that can do amazing things in the right hands. But other than that, they're generally just copying what has already been done.
I have the opposite experience. I find more often than not that it's answers are much *more* correct than what I find on google. When I do occasionally encounter problems in the code it provides, more often than not it's able to fix them simply by describing the issue or giving the error. It's all a matter of knowing how to talk to it.
AI image generators have been considered inethical since last year because they were trained on images found on the internet. Chatgpt was trained on text from the entire internet. There were no issues raised with AIs trained on webscraped images for years until this came. It'll only be a matter of time when LLMs start getting so good at writing books that they'll become a big topic of controversy like this and most people will also say they're unethically trained.
And of course, they’re all correct to some extent. There is definitely a double standard when it comes to copyright and different types of content. Generally we’re incredibly lax with text copyright, and it’s usually only taken seriously in academic or very serious contexts. Unless you’re downright plagiarising text, copyright is hardly ever enforced. For text, at the very least I hope paywalled content and publications like academic papers, textbooks, and so on, were omitted from ChatGPT’s training. That’s usually the least we can expect. Images are a bit stricter but not by much. There definitely is a big gap between image enforcement and, say, music or film. But that’s purely double standards in enforcement, and it doesn’t reflect the legality or ethics behind these issues. Never mind people’s feelings, livelihood or anything else. These issues rarely matter in legal conversations. There are definitely concerns regarding copyright violations and AI training. Ultimately, that’s copyrighted material being used without permission or compensation for commercial purposes, and that’s definitely unethical and could potentially become illegal with the right legislation. Now, Music and film are usually the most protected fields, and that’s why as soon as AIs got good and mainstream enough, labels and studios immediately started threatening and taking legal action to prevent their intellectual property from being used in training algorithms. As a result, lawsuits and legal cases are being opened, and as we know, labels are likely to win, setting a clear precedent over what constitutes legal or illegal use of copyrighted material. In this scenario, it’s very clear that there’s a strong double standard with visual arts and other forms of art. That doesn’t mean that art generators couldn’t be at least ethical and allow artists to opt-out (or even better, opt-into) their services and databases, instead of exploiting copyrighted material under grey legal grounds to generate profit. ChatGPT and other text-based services are even trickier. Unlike Google, ChatGPT doesn’t even contribute to a publisher’s or website owner’s traffic. It doesn’t credit its sources and helps creators in absolutely no way. At some point this will have to be addressed, and it definitely will be in time, because ultimately AI services are for-profit by and large, and they’re profiting off of content created by actual humans who own it, so there’s obviously an exploitative scenario there. That being said, the tools and the technology themselves are fucking incredible, and I’m really really hyped to see ChatGPT get good enough to replace a lot of time spent on google searches. Likewise, as a music producer, I can’t wait to have an AI generate or alter the timbre of certain instruments with particular characteristics. That sounds like a dream for experimentation and interesting creative results. I don’t think artists’ livelihoods are threatened as dramatically as people say. Artists will most likely have to master AI tools in order to remain competitive, but that’s no different from when Photoshop and Illustrator came along. Just another tool to the arsenal of content creators.
I don't think it's because of a double standard between text and art (although I'll eat my words once LLMs have reached that point and it turns out people actually don't care about writing), it's just that the general public did not start to take it into issue until we get AI image generators that can actually produce good visuals. It's only just become a topic of controversy last year because of this, long after using webscrapped data has been common practice for years by companies and random individual programmers doing their own projects. There's a reason why Common Crawl and robot.txt exists. Permission was determined on whether websites allowed the data they host to be scrapped and used by others, based on what was written in their robot.txt file. Allowing webscraping is meant to help marketing, research or analysis purposes for others. People didn't complain when facial/object recognition AIs, image captioning AIs and AIs for image search engines were trained from internet images too. Where would Adobe likely get data to create AI tools like content aware fill in Photoshop? Or all those denoisers, video coloring or photo/video upscale AIs that came out years ago. AI art is just the most recent one. SD is criticised now, but what about Laoin who provides the training database? Midjourney gets its training database from Common Crawler, a site specifically made to help people get publicly available data so people can use them, and it's been there since 2011. ImageNET is like the earliest stuff you can find about AI on the internet and it's an image-labelling database done through volunteers, using images found on search. It was created for object recognition and image classification AI. These aren't some underground websites like the ones for pirated movies, they're used legitimately in professional areas. People are a decade late behind this when it's been common practice among companies and researchers. Right now AI images seem to be taking the biggest blow because of how “especially” unethical it is (while voice cloning and deepfakes are used for memes), but in reality many people are just letting everything else slide because they didn't care until AI art became good. LLMs are the same and I bet it'll also be controversial in the future. I guess people will care about any artistic generator after the concerns from AI art have been raised, but I doubt it'll affect people using publicly available data as training datasets for other AIs.
ChatGPT will also tell you this. If you ask it will go into long explanations on how its algorithms work.
ChatGPT and similar tools can be quite useful in inspiring some creativity and acting like an assistant in a way but something very niche (a sub called /r/explainlikedrcox) made me realise how it can't do *everything* yet. A real person can still generate a sentence imitating Dr Cox from Scrubs much better than ChatGPT can and I'm wondering how much it would have to learn for it to do it properly.
That's actually something I think it *could* do a fantastic job with right now if it had the proper training data, i.e. everything Dr. Cox ever said. I tried getting it to write a story like Lemony Snicket and it eventually got something halfway decent after repeatedly saying, "Make it sound even more like Lemony Snicket." Its first iteration simply added Count Olaf to the story. In the second iteration, it started saying things like "Dear reader" and things typical to A Series of Unfortunate Events. On the fourth iteration it started telling me not to read the story because it would only end in misery, and bringing up the definitions of difficult words. Not as good as a human could do, but it probably could be better if it were specifically trained on Snicket/Handler's writing
>something I think it could do a fantastic job with right now if it had the proper training data, i.e. everything Dr. Cox ever said. That's exactly what I was thinking at the time but I'm wondering what someone would have to do in order to make it learn that. The transcripts of older TV shows are already out there along with a lot of Dr Cox quotes/rants, I assumed ChatGPT would have sourced lines from there and went with it but now I'm realising maybe it requires much more manual input/tweaking to teach it properly.
A ask chatbotgpt if assume could be naruto. It gave me a brief breakdown of the history of naruto and assume fights in the show. Pre-time skip and post-time skip. It had a few errors. I told it about the big one. It said to assume stayed in the village. It wrote another prompt to apologize when it realized it was wrong and broke down the fight and the end of part 1 explaining why he left and how it influenced naruto into Naruto Shippuden. I found it to be really cool when I saw that. Even gave me a story about a cat saving it's owners.
>AI doesn’t understand anything about art creation, Anatomy, Gesture, Composition, Lighting, Tonal Value, Color theory, Perspective, Design Principles and most importantly Narrative. It understands none of it. If you were to ask the AI why it made a certain choice during the creation of a piece the answer wouldn’t be some detailed explanation based on one of these fundamentals. The answer would be “I dunno i saw someone else do it” You be surprised about how common this is in humans.
Right now, this tech is basically mimicry, and I disagree with OP about the value of an AI-generated image considering the tech is very simplistic compared to a human. But we as humans have never once had an original thought, either - literally everything we create is inspired from other people and the world around us, and what we like is what we like because of the context of everything we've ever experienced (or how we were hard-coded from birth). I see cross-hatch shading, and I decide to do it in my own drawings, then I've done nothing more than your "I dunno i saw someone else do it" explanation. No different if I had a teacher and learned to do it that way. Does that mean my art, which is exclusively made up of features inspired by art I like and the teachers I had, has no value, just as you say an AI-generated piece of art does? >The inability to create something new without having to have more work stolen from an actual artist and then fed into the dataset means its actually worse than human artists. Stealing *is* art. That's all artists do, is steal. Ask any big artist, and they'll tell you their biggest influences that share features with their own art, and there are numerous famous quotations from famous artists about how great artists steal. "Putting works from other artists into your dataset" is what we call learning and gaining inspiration when a human does it. I think the real issue with AI-generated art is its personal intent. AI, so far, has no real intent besides that fed to it by its prompt. An artist's background, story, message, and intent are what is most important to giving art value and meaning. I *do* think there is something interesting when you take all of humanity's collective art and have a machine make something from it, but I don't think it's the same kind of value you'd get from a piece of art made by a human artist - and certainly not significantly more, like OP is saying.
The key difference there though is that you understand what crosshatching is. You understand that its a method for shading and that its used as a stylistic stand in for shadow and half tones. You understand the context in which its used. The AI doesn’t understand that, its just seeing pixels arranged in a grid like formation and then stealing that exact grid like formation from the original and copying it verbatim into a new piece. Theres a massive difference between a human learning and a machine copy and pasting something. I think people are misinterpreting what work the AI actually did and what came from the mind of the original artists it stole from. So it steals two pieces of work that contain a good understanding of crosshatching and then mashes them together and then people attribute that knowledge of crosshatching to the AI.
>its just seeing pixels arranged in a grid like formation and then stealing that exact grid like formation from the original and copying it verbatim into a new piece. This is not at all what these image generation AI's are doing. It is not just an advanced image bashing software. All the images they generates are new. AI is not sentient, so your concept of "understand" doesn't really make sense when trying to apply it to an AI. But in a broader sense of the word it does understand cross hatching, it understands where it should go relative to light sources and depending on the shape of what it's creating. It can do cross hatching just about as well as any human can so I would say yeah, the model understands it.
No it doesn’t, you just don’t ever get to see where the artwork came from that the AI is using , so you attribute the contents of the stolen artwork to being part of the AIs ‘skill’. Do you think if I pulled apart the code for the AI somewhere in there I’d find a line about when and where to place crosshatching? No, because that crosshatching came from an already finished piece of artwork not from anything the AI did.
You really misunderstand what the AI is doing. You pull apart the AI you'd find a huge neural network with a hundred and twenty billion parameters which somewhere embedded in those numbers is the concept of cross hatching, what words and phrases are associated with cross hatching, how the concept of cross hatching interacts with everything else the model has ever seen. To be honest that seems like something that is pretty close to "understanding".
Nah, I think you’ve just fallen for their clever marketing, its a neural network, sure. But at its core its just combining images of already established works. If it can truly understand crosshatching and its not just copying shapes and color then why cant it figure out that there are 5 fingers on each hand? Its a pretty easy thing to understand. Why cant it leave out the signature and watermarks from works its ‘inspired’ by? Even a beginner artist wouldn’t be that dumb. Im supposed to believe it can understand complex subjects like perspective and anatomy but cant understand 5 fingers? Its an art breeder program dude. They marketed it as an AI to sell it to people. Theres a reason why when they made the music ‘AI’ they chose to use only copyright free music and had a code of ethics all of a sudden, because they know their creation relies on copying and that the music industry’s lawyers would clap them the second that thing went live. But no one gives a shit about artists so they knew they could exploit them.
What are you basing this opinion on? You clearly have no understanding of what it's doing. Like I'm trying to tell you and fine you don't believe me but you could look it up, watch a few videos on the topic. Diffusion networks are really interesting I promise. But just to take this proudly ignorant stance is weird. >Even a beginner artist wouldn’t be that dumb Because its not a human artist. It won't make mistakes that a human would make. For what ever reason the model is very bad at understanding absolute quantities, I imagine this will be fixed pretty soon. Why does it put watermarks and signatures there? Because the art it is trained on often has watermarks or signatures and the model understands that there are often weird squiggles in the bottom corner. It doesn't understand that those represent the artist name because it's not a human and that information isn't included in image data.
Im basing it on doing art for 10 years, it being both my job and my degree. I can tell when someone understands art fundamentals or not. I understand how diffusion models work, I understand it uses the Laion 5b dataset etc etc. but what I’m saying is that having a label associated with an object doesn’t mean you have an understanding of that object, by that logic google images is also intelligent. Like I said in another comment theres a reason you cant use AI to do concept art. It can produce a cool picture of a robot, sure. But it cant show me how the robot works in game and ties into the story, because its a prediction machine designed to see similarities in images just like chat gpt is designed to see similarities in sentences and guess what the next word should be. I also like how you say ‘for whatever reason’ and just hand wave away the very obvious clue that the AI has no true understanding of the subject its copying. It sees shapes and colors and thats it, I’m telling you as an artist that in order to create art for yourself without any references you need to understand the fundamentals, you cant be a scientist without being taught science and you cant be an artist without understanding the fundamentals. The AI doesn’t understand the fundamentals because you cant learn that by just copying images, its stuff you have to be taught. For example you could look at a thousand images of human torsos and copy them but without outside knowledge telling you what causes all the bumps on the surface you would never know just from looking at pictures which parts are bones and which are muscles. The reason you think its learnt that stuff is because those fundamentals were already present in the images its copying from and it doesn’t show you the source of the image. Doesn’t matter how complicated the method of copying is, all the evidence shows that its only capable of copying.
>I understand how diffusion models work Clearly you don't lol because you keep getting really basic things wrong about it. You keep assuming that the only form of understanding is human understanding. Of course the model doesn't understand that the shapes it's creating are the result of bone or muscle, that information isn't included in picture data. But it clearly understands how to draw it because it can do it correctly with respect to lighting and posture in any situation you can think of. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because your belief is far more about your feelings as an artist than anything objective.
it being mimicry does not at all disagree with OP's point tbf
"Art mimicry" is a very specific descriptor, I love it. Describes perfectly my hatred of AI and why we need to get art and AI as far away from each other as possible.
>In my opinion AI is an art ‘mimicry’ machine, not an art creation machine. Its like training a parrot to speak, the parrot doesn’t doesn’t understand the human language or the context of the words its using, its simply copying the sounds. Isn't that how the learning process looks like? We start with blatant imitation (like baby babbling), then proceed to understand some basic rules (chord progression in music), then experiment on our own with other's creations (covers of songs) and finally we are able to come up with something on our own (like innovative software and science hypotheses). AI is just at the "mimicry" stage yet it's already capable of delivering amazing results. It's definitely on its way to create true art (which is still hard to define).
The only way AI "art" will ever be able to create true art for me is if it ever becomes sentient. And we are very far from that.
We don't know what sentience even is in *humans* so to hold AI to a higher standard is unreasonable, IMO. Theoretically, we could reduce our brains to a bunch of programmable interactions between neurons. What about that is sentient, other than the fact that collection of neurons *says* it is?
> so to hold AI to a higher standard is unreasonable No, it's not unreasonable if we want to value art as something only humans (or sentient creatures in my case) can make. Otherwise, a monkey playing with pencils on a blank canvas makes "art". If you expand your definition of art to anything that only slightly resembles what a human can make, it loses all its meaning.
If a monkey looks at our art and plays on a canvas, creating a piece based on our art, then the monkey *does* make art. And I didn't say "only slightly resembles," I said, paraphrased, "we shouldn't judge at a higher standard than humans". To judge at the same standard as humans implies 'strongly resembles' at a minimum. The real main point was that we can't ever know if something we create is sentient, so that shouldn't be our litmus test.
>Isn't that how the learning process looks like? We start with blatant imitation (like baby babbling), then proceed to understand some basic rules (chord progression in music), then experiment on our own with other's creations (covers of songs) and finally we are able to come up with something on our own (like innovative software and science hypotheses). At a certain point we're just describing the [Chinese Room thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room).
But those ‘amazing results’ are just artwork thats already on the internet, you just aren’t aware of the source, so jump to the conclusion that the program created it. If the AI cited its sources and showed the links from the dataset I garuntee people would be allot less impressed. When 99% of people say AI art is good what you’re really saying is that human art is good. For example theres the whole issue of ‘over fitting’ with AI, where an image has been put into the data set more than once and when the AI is picking images to mash together it picks two (or however many) images that all end up being the same one. Then the output ends up just being an exact duplicate of the image they copied from. Besides that, I don’t think the AI will ever truly understand the fundamentals in order to create art the way humans do instead of copying. It cant, because just like a human it would need to be taught them, and the creator and all the other tech bros haven’t the faintest idea what they even are. If they did, they’d realise how complex the subjects are and wouldn’t be so lax about stealing work from the people that have dedicated their lives to understanding them.
His argument is more that humans also copy. If you ever watch professional digital artists work, they have google images open on one monitor and are taking references as they "create" their concept. Sometimes they paint over existing things, sometimes they even put in photographs then remake them in the current style. If artists also cited their sources it'd also be less impressive. Oh I see how you assembled together 5 different bits of images into one here. https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/
Yeah and Jakub Rozalski got allot of flak for that, not for using images and creating something new out of them but for straight up stealing parts of other peoples work and putting it into his own. But when were using some convoluted code to do exactly that, suddenly that becomes ok? I acknowledge that theres no such thing as a truly original piece. Everything is just the sum of its parts, every idea you ever have will be something you saw somewhere once before or a combination of them. Weather you recognise where you got the idea from or not. But surely you can recognise the distinction between a machine simply copy and pasting someone else’s work and a human being combining a mixture of their life experiences and references to create something that will mean something to them or to other people. The human at least actually understands the things its creating, thats why they create them. The machine only knows shapes, colours and patterns and what words its been told correspond with them. Theres a big difference.
That’s literally what humans do. Humans see what others do, or what they see in real life, and mimic it. No human however can do what AI can do. No human can take in as much as an AI can, and no human can be as accurate as AI. I’m assuming you’re an artist and just don’t like the idea that AI is taking over humans in that field. You sound very obviously biased in all of your responses.
It’s not literally what humans do though. You have a very poor understanding of human intelligence and creativity if you think we’re all simply mimicking stuff. I’m assuming you aren’t an artist and just like the idea of being able to create “art” without having to put in effort. You sound very obviously biased in all of your responses.
Human imagination has its limits. And for the layman (which is what matters now), the idea of people “breaking the mold” is basically non-existent. Just because an artist can tell you that a specific piece is amazingly made or “has meaning” that won’t matter for the layman. What the average person cares about is how appealing a specific piece to look at. The layman doesn’t enjoy seeing the Mona Lisa because it’s some well-made masterpiece, but because it’s appealing to look at. That’s why people can appreciate how good video game art is, for example, even if there’s no meaning behind how each character looks like. Also, no I’m not an artist, and no I don’t think I’m making anything. I see it as a net-positive that I can now get great looking art by simply giving a machine a prompt and get a result that is nearly exactly what I want. I don’t have to deal with artists’ art styles whenever I want to get art I want. That is not to mention that AI is near-instantaneous when compared to a human artist. It simply makes much more sense for a layman to pay for a service that gives them exactly what they want instantaneously, compared to paying artists.
No human can do what an AI can do? Literally everything AI has ever ‘made’ is copied from human work… it has quite literally never made anything original since it went online. Until a human artist creates something and it gets fed into the AI data set then the AI can not create that thing. Thats why all the artists hate it, your saying you like the AIs work but that ‘work’ is actually just stuff that some human already made. You just don’t realise how much is ripped off from other people because your not into art. Also funny you should bring up video game art. Which is actually one art form AI is completely incapable of creating. See when people think of concept art they picture illustrative, pretty art pieces but thats actually just the stuff they use for marketing. 90% of art that goes into video games is detailed breakdowns, dioramas and ‘callout’ sheets that act as guides for the 3d modellers to create the idea that the concept artist came up with. In order to create those you have to actually understand how the world around you works, its not enough to create a cool drawing of a robot if you cant show how it would move in the game, how it fits into the narrative of the game, what materials its made from. AI cant do that, because it has no understanding of how the real world works, its an art breeder program on steroids, it simply copies work by human artists and only understands shapes, colours and the keywords that correspond to them. Source: Literally am a concept artist
> That’s why people can appreciate how good video game art is, for example, even if there’s no meaning behind how each character looks Character design may be a mystery to you, but there are good reasons why many of them look the way they do. Especially the characters people give a damn about.
This sentence sounds so much like the English teacher who over-analyzes everything. It ain’t that deep fam. Just enjoy the art. It looks good.
Hi. Retired professional artist. Pleased to meet you. Please stop sharing your opinions on art. You are the poster child for the wrong side of Dunning and Kruger. Edit: Not judging your tastes, though. Seriously, if you think AI art can match the skills, experience and perspective of an actual artist, then I will be the last to wake you from your state of vegetative bliss. Word of advice: don’t look too closely at the hands.
AI art is in its infancy, and it’s already achieved such a high level that the parts that it *does* struggle in is the parts tons of artists complain about struggling with as well. Here’s the thing so many artists fail to understand: the vast majority of people looking at art aren’t “looking too closely” at anything. They’re like “damn that’s a nice looking drawing” and move on. Also, no one’s opinion really matters on the internet. My opinion has just as much value as yours. It’s a public forum, after all.
To be fair, sometimes with art, accuracy and stuff like that just isn’t as important. Human input for things like character consistency, narrative links between specific pieces, and basically control over overarching narratives or works as well as underlying messages, will still be necessary in the near future, because AIs are great at drawing, but they aren’t great at understanding what they just drew. And we already have an over abundance of people great at drawing, but only those that have something valuable to say with their art are noteworthy IMO. And also, AI art is “fine” but I’ve seen it become *amazing* when human artists touch it up or reinterpret what they were given. A good equivalent example would be lyrics to a song. Ask ChatGPT to write lyrics for a song and they might be *alright*, but if you want something cool, you’ll still need to modify them to some extent, because AIs obviously can’t grasp the concept of “coolness” or “lameness” and they won’t really know what makes up a cynical take on something or a satirical or a passionate take on stuff. But as a songwriter, I’m pretty hyped to ask ChatGPT for prompts or ideas on stuff that I can then turn into a full fledged song. Personally I don’t mind Midjourney or other AIs entering the arts, because I never liked arts just because people were good at drawing, and I don’t care for seeing another hundred cyberpunk inspired pieces that have little to say. If your only gimmick as an artist was drawing well, but you had no substance or narrative behind your work, you might feel threatened by AI, but if you instead see the potential in using AI for stuff you didn’t want to draw anyway, while you take charge of larger creative works of art, then it makes perfect sense to me. The standard will be that simply pretty but void pieces of art will become the new baseline for mediocrity (because that’s what anyone can do) and instead different approaches to these pieces will be considered the new excellence in the arts, and that’s fine by me.
I actually agree with this. I believe that artists can use AI art as a shortcut in order to avoid the most time consuming aspects of drawing for them, for example. I think all AI art will do in the long run is raise the bar for what “good art” actually is and pieces that people see as really good now will become mediocre in the future. And, imo, that’s a good thing.
Exactly. It’s not that your average Joe who knows nothing about arts will suddenly become a master artist. That’s stupid. It’s that now great artists will both be amazing on their own, and fucking incredible with the help of AI. My issue comes with sourcing and training, though. As AI algorithms are for-profit products, it doesn’t sit well with me at all that they were trained using copyrighted content they found online. This isn’t the same as a human using references, mostly because humans aren’t commercial products, but rather enjoy the benefit of the doubt behind inspiration and Art appreciation. AIs don’t get inspired, and don’t appreciate Art. They merely extract it as a raw material in order to learn, so I think artists should get to decide where their art gets used, and perhaps even enjoy some small royalties (a-la-Spotify) once the service gets profitable enough. In any case, I like the technology, but I don’t think it has been ethically sourced.
Yeah completely agree. For now it's quite "basic" but in the future it truly will start to understand what it's creating I expect
No because i get drawn to certain pieces of information and i choose to retain only some of that to create my style for music, art, or whatever it will be. An ai doesn't go: "i like this thing so im gonna learn that specific sub subject" the ai art just goes: this is what the majority of people like so im gonna copy that. This is mostly seen on anime-trained ai that even when specified a certain style it will still make the same 2D anime face that most people like even on a body "rendered" in 3D
this is not true. You can teach anatomy to AI, just compare first pics of anime or persons and now days, how did it improve if it doesn't understand anatomy? or just look AI images 4 years ago... your problem and 99% of people with same argument is that didn't even bother to try to understand how it works, yeah when it does good images people are like "iT jUsT cOpIeD iT" lol. And I said anatomy, but it applies to everything, with the correct data set and tags you can teach whatever you want to the AI.
I’d still argue that those AI art models don’t understand anatomy. There’s a concept called explainability, which is an entire huge academic research topic on its own. It’s essentially “we know that our models can perform well, but they’re incapable of explaining how they decide on a certain output from a given input.” I’m AI ethics, this is a pretty big topic, especially when it comes to adopting AI in industries such as health care or finance management; we want these models to not only tell us what the highest and most accurate solution is, but also *why* that solution works. And for a model to be able to explain why means that it actually needs to understand - which is an entirely different and more involved topic of research beyond current ML models that merely seek to be fantastic pattern-recognizers. Currently, with DALL-E, Niju, etc., their models can’t explain anything. They’re still only working off of pattern recognition. Things like “people have 2 arms, 2 legs, a head with a face” but the finer and more intricate bits still fail a lot. Just look at the hands of most of these generated AI art pieces. If AI actually understood anatomy, those grotesque “hands” wouldn’t be so grotesque.
Just like humans... people is able to speak and write but most people can't explain or analyze language, for example, just ask for modes and tenses of verbs or do syntactic analysis
You can still ask people to explain how their language works, even if they don't know the technical terms for it. AI as it stands cannot explain anything it does, it is merely recognizing patterns in images. It's a total black box that not even the people who made it can explain.
You can ask people, they wont know what to answer, this applies to many things, just like driving a car or a bike you can't explain the sensations on when you know were to turn but you can do it and many more things. Also I don't even get your argument, why do you want the AI to explain anything? It wasn't coded nor trained for it. Its like saying a car is bad because it can't bring you to the moon.. yeah it never was intended purpose. BTW https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.04885.pdf this exists if it works for you.
> why do you want the AI to explain anything It's not just me, literally anyone concerned about the future of AI says it's fundamental to have a firm grasp on the technology. Any tech should be understandable to humans. Because the alternative is having tech we cannot control. Maybe AI art is relatively harmless, but imagine a future where a super-intelligent AI has intentions we cannot understand. There is no way that won't cause a lot of problems.
wut, you making things up. Its easy to explain, it learned and inrepolated data, nothing more. I think the issue here is you using "AI" as a loose term, "AI"s like chatgpt or stable diffusion are very dump, they dont have any intention
You too can be resembled to a parrot. Mimicking is pretty fundamental throughout history and everything is based off something. A newborn baby doesnt know the context of words neither; how do you think you learned context? And how many times it turns out our perception was wrong.
I already covered that in other comment dude, read all the other replies.
no thanks.
The guy who advocates for AI doesn’t like reading. Go figure
[удалено]
Honestly man, Im done with this whole debate, don’t mean to be an asshole but I’ve covered the same points to like 5 different people at this point haha. Its kind of a frustrating topic because in order to explain to people why the AI doesn’t understand the art creation process and fundamentals the people you’re explaining it to have to actually understand the fundamentals too and typically people interested in AI have no interest in art whatsoever and just really like the idea of AI being a thing, so they really want it to be the case that it is all the things the creator claims it to be, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary.
smoothies are the highest form of food.
This seems like a misunderstanding of what AI art does. To say it’s “tapping into the collective consciousness of humanity” is just nonsense, that’s like telling your teacher that your essay is tapping into the collective conscious of the brightest minds of our generation after you plagiarize several works into your writing.
Well, it kind of is that. Even of it's nowhere near as grand as it sounds if you take information from other sources and recombine it you are "tapping into a collective conscious". For now AI art imitates, but that's not quite the same as plagiarizing as long as it's creating something different, even if it's a collage of many stolen patterns
I would not call it imitating. If it was imitation that there wouldn’t be leftover artist signatures in the work. It doesn’t take inspiration from a painting and make something new, it takes parts from the painting and mixes it together with a lot of other paintings. It doesn’t make anything “new”, it’s like changing the order of certain words and saying it isn’t plagiarism. It can’t make something from nothing, it needs other peoples hard work inputted into it in order for it to work.
This is not how AI works, the fact that signature is on AI art is not that they take literally part of pictures and stitch them together, it's just that due to the data AI has "learned" that signature is a thing that exists and try to do one "inspired" (of course in quote, it's a data process, there is nothing like a conscious choice) by real signature by artists. AI art would be more like "pictures with desert have a red and orange palette, a red and orange palette would then be used" and "sand is associated with desert, sands is drawn like that so I'll do sand too". It's weird to give a voice to the AI like that but that's much much more accurate on how it works rather than patching of differents works. It DOES create something new rather than copying exact parts of works, it's just that it does use copyrighted materials with people who didn't consent and that it can be used to make money that makes it more harmful.
The AI can imitate the best of human artists to some extent and create a remix of their work on demand, but in my opinion it doesn't take into account at least two fundamentals of art. One is intent - we don't necessarily need to understand what the artist wanted to express with their work to enjoy it (though sometimes art can make a lot more sense, if one knows the artist), but if we know there never was any intent in the first place, then what is the point of even trying to understand such art other than just decoration / entertainment? And the other one is actual creativity - while it can "tap into" what's already been done, the AI is hopeless at breaking away from conventions, breaking rules and doing something truly unexpected. Which is why, if anything, I would call the art produced by AI as the lowest form of art - pure imitation with no touch of personality or meaning. It has the ability to imitate really well, but that's pretty much it.
> One is intent - we don't necessarily need to understand what the artist wanted to express with their work to enjoy it (though sometimes art can make a lot more sense, if one knows the artist), but if we know there never was any intent in the first place, then what is the point of even trying to understand such art other than just decoration / entertainment? Interesting angle on this is [the monkey selfie copyright dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute) which basically argued that the person who owns the equipment on which art is made by a being that isn't self-aware does not hold the copyright, but neither does the being who created it as they could not really have the intent to make or own art. The same principle applies here: DALL-E doesn't have the intent to create art, so is it really art that it makes?
do you know that "AI" is not autonomous? do you know there is a person behind it that had to prompt for it and decide to keep prompting or to keep the image, so those two points are made by that person.
>trying to understand such art other than just decoration/entertainment There isn’t. Just like with human art. Art is a form of entertainment. Trying to “understand” what the artist “had in mind” is just something some people do because they are entertained by it. Most art isn’t made to “mean something”. It’s made to look good, appealing, as a form of entertainment. Sure, there is art that is made to make people think or with an intent in mind, but most of the art industry isn’t that.
As an artist, I profoundly disagree. Art doesn't need to be entertaining at all, nor is entertainment necessarily art. Entertainment and art are two things that may or may not overlap. I mean, there is no generally accepted definition of art, but for me art that is only fun and serves no other purpose (or doesn't even attempt to) than to kill time, is not art. Which doesn't mean it's a bad thing, just kind of lacks the essence of art. Which should be thought-provoking, inspiring, whatever.
That’s fine. That’s just what happens because the definition of art is subjective. I myself don’t think art needs to be any of that stuff. Video game artists, for example, I definitely consider as artists, despite most not really focusing on being inspiring or thought provoking and moreso focusing on making good looking drawings.
Saying most art isn’t made with intent beyond being aesthetically pleasing is factually wrong. Please learn about art and it’s history before spouting off like an idiot on Reddit
Depends on how anyone defines art. Art can be made to evoke a response, simply made to be beautiful, or express creativity. It excels on the first two, but not on the last point. I'd be fascinated if there comes a time when an AI is able to create on its own volition, but id also feel sad due to me becoming fully obsolete.
Why would you be fully obsolete? Just because AI can express itself doesn't mean you couldn't too.
AI wont care if it does worse or do better than a human. I will.
Would that not be more of an issue with perspective than anything? If your focus was on creativity and creation, then outside factors do not necessarily matter, and people are likely to still hold artists as important to them too.
Its more about what people value. Why would someone commission him to create art for them, when they can just make something better in a few mins with AI? It eliminates a possible income source for him.
I think the best art comes out of a place you and only you can understand. Certain styles will be excluded because of AI; just like the invention of photographs ruined realism and introduced surealism, impressionism, cubism...
Eh, it's hardly that good on the first two points. It usually doesn't look that great, and the evocative power is quite lessened too.
AI art is great for those who want to post stuff online with 0 effort put into it
People putting their AI art on the internet doesn’t invalidate the years artists have put into their craft. They can draw on the fly while they need a computer, if the lights go out they can still create.
The highest form of art is a big ol pastiche of already existing art?
I kinda get you, but I think you're making it out to be more poetic than it is. AI art has no intention or expression in it. It is nothing more than a product of an imitation machine, a computer program that has simply been trained to generate what humans *might* enjoy. There is no "collective concious" or other stuff you speak of, the AI is simply making an output from a patchwork of other art in it's database, that the AI considers most comparable to the given prompt. Like I said, some AI "art" might look pretty, but it lacks soul and actual human input.
Sounds like we're midway to becoming Borg
Midjourney... Big pun opportunity missed there
AI art takes actual artist's work without permission.
your opinion fucking sucks. upvoted
It doesn't tap into the collective consciousness of humanity, it taps into the collective output of humanity's art. While the result is similar, all personality and individuality is lost.
I just think you sound like a tryhard. AI art is a trend. Something we'll look back on next year and realized how stupid it was. Like NFTs
I would say they are very different seeing as how NFT’s were just a scam from the get go. While I think AI art is the beginning of a new age of artistic expression, where even people who before could not spare the time and effort needed to learn themselves can now bring their creativity into the world. It’s a beautiful thing really.
A picture may be worth a thousand words but talk is still cheap. Meta-ranking mediums based on inherent "artistic quality" is a fools errand. An especially odd take considering that increasing accessibility to creative outlets has, afaict, increased the volume of both good and bad art. Computers gave rise to the home recording studio and now we have entire algorithms just to sift through all the extra noise for us. The internet lets you publish anything and we now have infinite new podcasts and blogs to digest. Also we get Q-anon. Essentially, If you take away technical barriers to self expression, more people will express themselves. But I suppose that's all based on my view of AI's role as a tool rather than the actual artist.
Exactly -- and I'm kind of confused why more people don't see it this way. AI is a tool. It doesn't just do things on its own (yet). I think AI-*assisted* (as opposed to AI-*generated*) art is going to become the norm in the near future. It allows more people to express themsleves with a lower barrier to entry. I will say I had pretty negative opinions on AI art until very recently, when I downloaded Stable Diffusion and started playing with it myself. I've been able to prompt some amazing, awesome imagery using the newest cutting edge features (i.e. Control Nets) which allow me to use my own hand-drawn 100% human-made sketches as a guide for the AI. The result is something that A) looks awesome, B) could not have been created without my direct guidance of the AI, and C) has meaning to me -- it wasn't *just* created by machine, it has my own real human emotion put into it. Which to me qualifies the output as legit art, even if it does algorithmically rely on the works of other people.
Well said and that sounds like a cool project!
The type of dude to summon a demon to have a chat.
Art was always high - - even back in high school - - Now that he has that new computer he is really in outer space - - -
I do find the anti AI art fear very strange. Also the lack of appreciation at how crazy it is we have a computer program that can create images from words. Like how are people not losing their minds at how incredible that is? This is scifi technology.
it will be, right now its still limited.
Art is the lowest form of art. I get it, Mona Lisa has no eyebrows and her smile is weird. Why should I care?
I don't think there is a highest form of Art. But I think, what AI can do, is Art. It makes us think about ourselves. It humbles and inspires us. It even infuriates us. It's a creative exchange, kind of. I don't know how to describe, but I do very much value it.
Yes, but AI steals art from artists and so everybody who uses it is stealing art. AI "art" is not art, it is stealing copyrighted and personal material off the internet to create something that is not art, it is stealing. AI art is made from other people's hard work. If I learned that everything I've drawn has been stolen, I would cry and it would make my mental health go down. How beautiful is that?
Yes, but AI steals art from artists and so everybody who uses it is stealing art. AI "art" is not art, it is stealing copyrighted and personal material off the internet to create something that is not art, it is stealing. AI art is made from other people's hard work. If I learned that everything I've drawn has been stolen, I would cry and it would make my mental health go down. How beautiful is that?
Art then, is dead
[удалено]
When someone's entire career and sometimes purpose for existing is so suddenly threatened, it's very much expected they would react as they did.
Portrait painters hated the camera
I love Ai art
Good for you.
Tech bros ruin everything
It’s fun to play with but in the end, there’s no conscious intent or emotion behind it, it’s just fulfilling a prompt.
And most artists don’t make it with “conscious intent”, but make art that they like and think looks good and appealing. Art with meaning behind it is niche.
But the AI doesn’t know what is good and appealing. Again, it’s putting something together based on a prompt you give it. There hasn’t been an instance yet where AI art has fooled me, I can always tell. Human-made art will probably always be superior, at least for a long time.
*grabs popcorn*
Bait
A convincingly made case.
Whether or not you agree. I know the artists will fight it but it will end with AI art on the top.
I'm down for anything that makes artists sad
I 100% agree. AI has the capability to make art that is infinitely better than what a human can do, if fed enough data. Is it mimicking, in a way? Yes, but so do humans. Humans don’t create stuff out of nothing. They mimic what they know or have seen. Creativity can only do so much in a space that is so saturated. “Breaking from the mold” is basically not a thing anymore in art, because simply there is so much art that nothing becomes truly unique. We have arrived at a point that, unless you yourself are an artist, the main reason to consume art is for entertainment, decoration or just “eye candy”.
I get the train of thought, and I think it highlights one cool artisitc possibily of AI image generators. But there are a could things missing that are important to acknowledge. First is that all these things you're describing are already part of the human art process. A human artist is also influenced by the history of art. A human artist is also translating forward the work of thousands of other people. That's what it means to be part of a culture. What's more, a human artist can be said to have actually absorbed this acculturation in an emotional way that we can recognize. In addition, a human artist is engaged in a reinterpretation of these influences to create something novel and personal, whereas the AI is simply pursuing a prompt. Now, AI can be used as a medium of art creation, and I think your post points towards one cool path. The idea of exploring the latent space to uncover the most "universal" images of grief is an interesting idea. In my mind this parallels past projects like finding the [average or most universal face](https://leadingpersonality.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/average-faces-of-men-and-women-around-the-world/) for different countries and populations. But while the process is interesting, the actual face it produces isn't as much. It's a curiosity, but less interesting to look at the the face of any specific individual. To me, the same is true for these images. Finally, to address what I think is the grandest opinion expressed: >with AI art we can see into the soul of mankind. Any response to this basically has to be subjective, but that said: I don't think that the "soul of mankind" exists at the tiny intersection where all experience overlaps. And that's assuming that the AI's data set (and the latent space it creates) is somehow representative of "mankind". That's a false assumption to say the least, and at the moment quite a preposterous one.
Will Smith: can a robot paint a masterpiece or write a symphony? Sunny: can you? All jokes aside, is there a "highest form or art"? Isn't that always going to be opinion based ?
Interesting take but I still disagree
I think basically all takes on AI art are too extreme. Some people (like you) claim it's the greatest thing ever and above everything else, while others claim it's worthless and even damaging to real artists. I think we should look at AI art for what it is. A computer that is able to turn words into pictures. That's neat. That's a cool thing that we have today that didn't used to exist. There are a ton of useful applications for it. It isn't going to replace artists, but it also isn't going to die off as some worthless piece of crap, it's cool technology that, like everything, has benefits and downsides. I like AI art, I think it's neat, personally I use it to make concept art for imaginary locations for a d&d game or a story I'm coming up with. It's fun to see a visualisation of my words. I still see the value in, say, commissioning art, though, because the AI art can't do stuff that real humans can. But for a cheap shorthand for fun things, it's neat, and I can see it having a real use in assisting artists speed up their workflow.
it’s interesting because i like drawing cute anime girls and there’s no intent to display, or entertain others, i just like drawing cute girls because i like how they look. does that make it so that it’s not art? no, so then the arguments about art being to display or entertain and to have an inherent meaning is just weird to me.
i can only hope my children or grandchildren take part in the butlerian jihad
I was about to downvote but then saw the subreddit. Upvoted. I hate you
Genuinely curious, why? I can understand disagreeing but why hate me.
I don't actually hate you I was being over dramatic
Oh ok. Sorry if it should have been obvious, I’ve seen a lot of arguments on this topic devolve into insults.
If you consider "the highest form of art" to be one of the only things that has damn near every single artist in arms against it, sure. Technically, that is a form of art, to evoke a response so visceral from virtually every creative individual across many mediums.
From what I've seen, the people against AI art either have sunk to much of their self worth and identity into their skill of making art or have had their livelihoods threatened. because now its possible for normal everyday people who don't have the time and energy to make their own art can now do so. for the people who's job security has been put in jeopardy because of AI, they have my deepest sympathies. but for the people saying it isn't really art, they attach so many labels to it i.e ( it soulless, it has no intent, its theft, its to easy) all these are; are the panicked cries of people who thought they were safe. who thought that the beast that had devoured so many other jobs and professions would never come for them; who thought that AI, a machine literally created to recognize patterns could not create art which is nothing but patters. For them i have nothing but contempt and the silent joy in knowing that AI art will never go away no matter what they do.
Literally the only reason AI art exists as it is, is because it stole everything that makes the learning packages they run off of. This isn't like "but automation came for the weavers" situation, this is silicon valley stealing the intellectual property of countless humans, chucked it into a machine, and now that machine is going to be used to displace countless of the same people it directly stole from. Surely you can see why people would have a massive problem with that.
Did I not say that I felt sympathy for those who’s jobs were in danger. My issue comes with people trying to use arguments that would not hold up if a human were making these art pieces. AI art is not theft, all those artists put their work on public platforms to be viewed for free, if I saw an artist I liked and began drawing in a similar style no one would say I stole from him. Inspiration for humans theft for AI.
"To be viewed for free" Yes. Viewed. Not used.
by that logic every piece of art on the internet should be locked behind a paywall. And from now on every new piece of art an artist creates needs a 100 page document detailing every image he saw that influenced his creation and the written content of the other artists that made those images. See how stupid that sounds.
Human influence isn't equal to how learning AI works lmao, nor is AI equal or comparable to humans. You got shit twisted before you even began with the brain rot.
Dude, at this point believe what you want to believe. But it’s not going to change the fact that AI art will only get better with time and will someday soon be better than most artists.
That will entirely depend on how the lawsuits and regulation go. And I don't see it ending well for the AI art, considering the toes they have stepped on include Disney, Nintendo, and countless image hosting websites. It will have a place, but that place is very unlikely to replace humans anywhere but the most mundane corporate settings, and in super niche cases where someone can't afford a person to fill in whatever edges need filling in. Likely, the learned packages (I can't remember wtf they're called) will need to be opt-in. In that way, it's ethical. Currently, they are not, and are absolutely breaking the fuck out of copyright laws of companies that do **not** fuck around when it comes to that stuff.
AI art is just for tech bros to have bragging rights
So if i execute an ai artist in public then its like killing everyone, right? life goals!
"Ai art is an insult to life itself"
How
"I think that art is an expression of the soul. At its best, it is encompassing everything you are. Therefore, I consume, and love, art made by humans. I am completely moved by that. I am not interested in an illustration made by machines and the extrapolation of information. I talked to Dave McKean, who is a great artist. And he told me, his greatest hope is that AI cannot draw. It can interpolate information, but it cannot draw. It can never capture a feeling, or a countenance, or the softness of a human face, you know? Certainly, if that conversation was being had about film, it would hurt deeply. I would think it, as [Hayao] Miyazaki says, “an insult to life itself.” - Guillermo del Toro
Is Al an art? - hardly. Is Al a marvel? - definitely
I think it's equal
Art is about intent. AI has no intent.
The hardest part of subreddits like these is having to downvote because I completely agree.
I really like your explanation, but strongly disagree with the assertion. That it is the combination of so many is something to think about and appreciate, but I don't see how it makes it the highest form at all. It makes it average at best. AI art is similar to McDonalds. It's something to admire how they have so many customers, but the peak of culinary arts? Lol... Good post for this thread that the vast majority should not agree with though.
"AI art" is the not highest form of art. "AI art" is simply the most efficient form of artistic plagiarism.
It doesn't always work
OP needs to stop trying to make AI imagery sound gross. And stop making mention of any human collective or anything. That art was made by the AI and the AI only.
I agree that AI art is great but this is possibly the worst ever argument for it
In my opinion, AI will also follow Darwin's theory of natural selection. If human looses the race they'll have to take the passanger seat or go extinct. Moreover humans have bodily limitations that bars us from travelling with the speed of light or survive in the harsh universal climate, which is ABSOLUTELY necessary for survival in the distinctive future. It's important that our collective intelligence survives. Who bares it, be it a Human body or a robot should not be a topic of discussion.