You must log in or register to comment.
I hate that it’s built on theft. The idea of AI art is fine, but so much of it is just art theft. “Picture of A in the style of artist B.” That kind of shit really makes me hate AI art.
I don’t hate AI art. I hate AI art being passed off as “traditional” art.
I think it substracts from everything but itself. That is on its own, its pretty cool. But it’s gross when it’s used as part of a bigger project.
It’s not art. Expanding the sense of the word to all kinds of nonsensical phenomena is both damaging art and artists as well.
I take the liberty of a personal definition of art, or if not definition, at least prerequisites for something to be considered art, and that is that art must be made by the hand of the artist and that it’s conception must include deliberate thought/mental process of the artist. It may not be the best definition, but I consider it to be good enough to draw a definite line between Michelangelo and the internet lady who vlogs about the art of tying your shoelaces or some similar shit.
No. It’s useful when you need a quick picture for something or help visualizing something. A huge timesaver. I haven’t seen it generate anything good enough to be hung in an art museum, so I don’t really understand why anyone would hate it. It’s not really competition for actual art. Also, I want to say that I don’t think anyone’s art was “stolen”. That’s the same ludicrous argument the RIAA uses against online file sharing. Any images used in the training was downloaded, mathematically analyzed, and deconstructed. “Stolen” would require a heist at the museum.
Good for memes, bad for the environment.
It looks so detached from reality.
low effort crap is low effort crap no matter how it’s made, that said, there is plenty of high quality, high effort AI art out there that has a lot of prompt engineering put into it; it is merely drowned out in a sea of sludge. It’s just about as easy for someone to put in zero effort and churn out AI sludge as it is for them to scribble in MSPaint, the difference being scribbling in MSPaint usually has some level of charm to it for its simplicity. That doesn’t mean the guy who spends a lot of time tweaking their prompt to get it exactly right isn’t an artist, it means they create art with different tools. Whether you use a rattlecan and stencils, or pencils and paper, or paint and canvas, or a wacom tablet and stylus, or type in carefully crafted prompts, art is art is art is art. But if you don’t spend the time required to get good at it, your art will be shit.
Also, watching the artist crowd melt down again saying “that’s not real art!” is absolutely hilarious. Those who weren’t around at the time may not remember, but when digital art was starting to become a thing, there were plenty of people who firmly attested that if it was digital, it wasn’t “real” art. Watching the same set of creatives having the same meltdown ~30 years later, “REEEEE YOU CAN’T JUST USE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER”, is extremely funny.
Bad for artists, but for the environment, low quality, low effort, and the most annoying people in the world love it.
I don’t hate it, I think it has its uses, just like text generation. They’re great for brainstorming ideas or quick unimportant stuff like RPG campaigns, so for example an in-game fake company logo or a poem to contain hints for the players.
However trying to use it for anything serious and final is stupid and dangerous. IMO any artist that had their art used to train a model should be able to claim royalties on anything created with that model, regardless of whether they can prove their art was used for the piece. And if the data used to train the model is not made public or can’t be verified, then ANY artist can. Maybe just 1% of the profits direct or indirect of that art, so for example you used AI to generate part of an invitation for a party, 100 artists could start a lawsuit and take every single cent you earned from the party. After all you indirectly hired them, it’s only fair they get paid, had you hired a single artist you could negotiate the price with them.
If I see a obviously AI generated picture as a thumbnail on youtube, I immediately block that creator. If I hear those awful AI voices reading text, same. If you want to share something with the world, put some effort into it.
Use case seems to just be dicking around, and that is just not worth the resources we pour into it.
I like it quite a bit. Le chat mistral does a good job
There’s nothing interesting about it. It’s a waste of storage space and computational power. It makes the world worse
I don’t even consider AI generated images to be art since there is no expression of skill, imagination, or feeling in them.
It reminds me to those hyper-realistic paintings that were trendy 15 years ago, they were impresive feats of skill but by the fifth in a row they became boring. AI is the same but without the skill.
AI generation is a gradient from clean up to controlling every pixel.
If an artist draws the line art, does basic coloring, but has a network do the sharing, that’s art. How far does that carry?
Surely, anything that had heart and soul poured into it is art, right? Text prompt, or otherwise. You don’t have to resonate with it. You can be scared of it.
But you said imagination, feeling, skill make up art. It is bold, or naive, to think those who create AI works doesn’t have these traits, like to say the hobbies, programmers, and the curious, aren’t artists.
I agree.To me art is an expression of the soul; it’s an expression of one’s perception of the world. It has spiritual qualities (in an atheist sense). There is an inner world that puts out together a piece of art that LLMs do not possess and that’s why they need to train on existing material that comes from human expression.
I highly doubt an LLM suffers, loves, hopes, hates and cries like us. Art is an expression of who we are individualy and collectively. LLMs only hallucinate with art made by humans. While we humans can find inspiration from other artists, it is not a necessity to train on vast databases of art pieces to put something together. They say that while it’s hard to define what art is, you know it when you see it. To me when I get that feeling from something made by AI, all I really see is a piece of an other artist’s soul trapped in some sort of simulacrum put together by an algorithm.
Cut the training material and AI “art” will stagnate. We, on the other hand, won’t.
That’s why I think AI art will never really be art… unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
Gaius Baltar enters the chat.
Exactly this.
I tend to agree with that. I also hate that of all the great uses for generative AI, this is the direction they took the tech. It’s not a replacement for whole jobs, and I knew that at the onset, but so many dumb business types thought it could replace entire departments, customer service, etc.
to be honest, i’m not only referring to images. any kind of what so called “art” since it’s possible now to make “music” with AI. thanks for the response anyway.
Even if the image was regenerated with tweaked prompts until the generated image expressed what the prompter wanted to convey?
I don’t think we’re at the level AI prompting can be used to reflect the subtlety needed to make art. It’s like chainsaw art, cool and mebbe art but it’s not art like the old masters art.
Also everyone thinking that shitting out a Rembrandt liking image is fantastic does not understand what art really is.
The person inputting prompt modifications may have controlled the larger assets as a whole, but they did not curate the Gestalt of the image. If the input is text that a computer is to output as a literal estimation, then it is data, not art; if the input is data curated by a person who means for a computer to output it as plotted data, such as with a complex lineplot or 3D model or even text as ASCII images, then that can be art.
Yes even then. Writing a prompt is no more an artistic skill than describing your idea to an artist you’re commissioning. You didn’t create a damn thing. You will not be called an artist for commissioning a work.
Then it’s still just a commissioned work
But would that then imply that all commissioned works aren’t art?
Or does the difference of who (or more specifically what) you commission to produce something decide whether it’s art?
An artist has done the art in question. That makes all the difference.
If the person using the paintbrush is the artist - not the brush itself - then why doesn’t the same logic apply to AI? It’s just a tool, after all. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own. Sure, you could ask it to spit out a picture with no effort, but you can do the same with a camera. However, if you have a clear vision of how you want the final result to look, it’s a different story. Getting AI to output an image is easy. Getting it to output your image - that’s hard.
It’s not hard. What are you, a „prompt engineer“?
If you asked a human to draw an image of what you describe, it would be easier and you still would not be considered an artist. So why should a “prompt engineer” be considered an artist?
Well, firstly, “art” and “artist” are human-invented concepts - they don’t exist in the real world, only in our minds - so in the end, we’re essentially debating semantics. That said, if you hire an artist, then yes, they’re the artist, not you. But I don’t think that same logic applies to AI, because it’s not making any decisions on its own. It’s a tool, just like a paintbrush, camera, or drums.
If an elephant paints a picture, is that art? And is the elephant the artist? If a child bangs on drums and is just making noise, is that art? Are they the artist? If I grab a camera, point it somewhere, and press a button, is that art? Am I the artist? Personally, I’d say each of those is easier to do than writing a prompt that actually produces the image you had in mind, yet I doubt you’d come telling me that my photography isn’t art only becuse I didn’t put enough effort into it.
I’m not hugely experienced with AI image generators, but I have played around with one, trying to get it to create a specific kind of picture I had in mind - and I’ve ended up with something like 70 variations, none of which quite hit the mark. I’ve already spent over four hours on this project, and if I somehow manage to figure out the right prompt and finally get the image I’m after, then yes - I’d say that’s art and I’m the artist.
In general - yes. There is a flood of shitty and lazy “art” that has infected search results and creative spaces. I’m also deeply uncomfortable with it being trained on artists work without their consent - for all the talk about it being equivalent to human inspiration I’m pretty sure there have been examples where it’s started generating attempts at signatures.
It’s terrible in knitting and crochet spaces (I imagine woodworking and sculpture and architecture too) because there are lots of things generated which are physical impossible and just wrong to anyone who enjoys the crafts. It gives false understandings of what those art forms look like.
I think the entire point of art is the human intentionality aspect. Art is humans using materials to do things that don’t serve an immediate practical purpose. There has to be some element of “desire” on the part of the artist.
So it’s not that it is impossible to use AI tools to generate art (there’s stochastic computer generated pieces from the 70s that are lovely iirc) To me though, the way these tools are used is what is important - if you’re using an AI you’re training and adjusting yourself, if you’re spending hours tweaking prompts and perhaps sifting through hundreds of pictures to combine and really participate in “making” something.
The current trend is really just a bunch of content sludge. I don’t see the appeal in either the process of creation or in what can be appreciated from it. The best stuff is mostly memey topical political jokes, where it rests more on the symbols rather than the art itself.
Like, when I make art - my process is adding layers over weeks and weeks. It’s noticing that I don’t like the way this section looks, so I go back over it, come back to it later… it’s a process - I engage with and shape the work. I’m just a guy who glues trash to things and paints them, my art doesn’t really have external value - but it still feels like art in a way that getting Midjourney to make pictures of Gandolf with big honking naturals isn’t.
