Anything AI synergizes is pixel soup, it has nothing to do with art only if your understanding of the world is as shallow and superficial as it can be.
@remenca the conversation surrounding AI and whether or not to use and acknowledge it rarely happens with the insight that AI was only created through plagiarizing and stealing from millions of artists.
You don't “make” a burger using McDonald's as a tool.
@ErikUden You are now moving the goalposts. Before, the problem was that for some unspecified reason AI output is not art. Now the problem is that what produces is plagiarism. Make your mind up, please.
Also, your assumption is wrong. You can train AI models without violating copyright.
@remenca No, I was just opening up other points as well because they're necessary for the foundation of this discussion. AI output is not art because art, for all of human history, had human intent and goals behind it. A creative mind with an idea and a dream sat down to create something, sometimes it was collaborative, sometimes the idea was plagiarized or re-imagined, but there was always an intent. We dislike art made for the sole purpose of money making, often see it as soulless, appealing to the masses, and with a faceless corporation behind it, not someone who wishes to share their thoughts. The idea of art where art is absent.
With AI imagery it is taking that concept and process and dumbing it down to the result, something that looks and pretends like something a human may draw, looks like it has a soul, but in reality is hastily made with the plagiarism machine.
AI has assisted artists and animators for many years now, and that usage is by no means problematic. From keypoint interpolation in animation to GauGAN, no one criticizes that AI.
However, the fact that an AI can be used to generate an image in the art style of a different artist by using their images without their consent in order to train this AI is new. Yes, there is potentially AI trained on public images, but it will always be at a disadvantage to the rest, so why should people use it?
The only meaningful and impactful change I have seen AI have is a burst of soulless AI voices reading a generated text or Wikipedia article to me with AI generated pictures or videos playing in the background with the most clickbait-y title and content possible. Content farms, that's what AI has mainly aided.
That's what people are mad about, you can talk to me all you want about definitions, the potential AI may have and what a beautiful world we may live in if AI was used and seen the way you do, but the reality is that the real world impact AI has on artists and non-artists is overwhelmingly negative.
@ward While I couldn't care less how people are calling it, I think that's a tool like any other.
There are people who don't consider digital painting art (or less valuable/artistic) than traditional painting.
Same goes with electronic music, loops and so on.
@LucaManciniDrummer not the same thing. digital painting and digital music require a significant amount of human input. It's the human expression in the creation of the art that make it art. Typing things into a prompt means you are good at creating ideas... but the "ai" creates the content, not you... and ai does not understand what it is doing, does not have it's own experiences or ideas to draw from, and is void of expression. So, it's not the same as something created by a human. Even if it is visually appealing, I'm more interested in something created by a human. When ai becomes real ai and can think... reason, etc. Then maybe I'll be curious to see what it expresses.
@ward I'm currently rewriting my website and one of the changes I've already made was renaming the "Curated content" section to "Curated art". Sufficient to say, there's not going to be any AI content in it. :thounking:
@ward I guess that depends on what you mean by "they". From what I've seen, it's largely nerds making pictures of "waifus", hentai, and Batman. But there are serious artists working with AI. Rob Sheridan for example: https://www.rob-sheridan.com. I also consider myself a serious artist. I do traditional painting, but I also experiment with AI generated imagery. Does that make us villains?
@shanesemler My main thing is that I'm just not interested because AI can have no artistic intent... The final product may be interesting in some way... and the viewer may feel something when looking at it, but I'm generally interested in the human expressions. Typing words into a prompt isn't enough to qualify as human expression because ai is creating the image for you. If you want to do it for fun and you enjoy it, by all means, you do you. However, I'll call it content and ignore it even if it is somewhat visually interesting to me.
I'd rather look at something similar that was created by a human because they actually are putting their experiences into the work... even if the human is borrowing ideas from other artists... it's still the personification of their own feelings.
If we create ai that actually understands what it's doing... and can express things... then I may be interested, though I don't think it will make much sense to us humans... We anthropomorphize everything... But anyway... bottom line, do whatever you want. I'm only interested in the art that you create.
@ward I get what you’re saying but what if I alter it in photoshop, does that make it mine? There are online apps that allow you to paint in real time and have the ai fill in the detail. Is that mine? You know what I mean, where do you draw the line?
@shanesemler I look at this like I look at ai code. I do not see a few lines of code as art... or if you tell ai to write a fucntion or something... not art... but as a whole composition, it can be art... because the code was arranged. So, if you use ai to generate a bunch of random bits of code then use that to build a game yourself. I think that can be art. I feel the same for ai... if you generate a bunch of stuff and heavily edit it to make a collage or if you mix it into something that you create yourself... it's similar to cutting a bunch of stuff out of a magazine then transforming it into something that you arrange yourself. I'm not interested in that in any form, but some may be... as for editing a single image in photoshop... it would have to be a total transformation... just cleaning up the ugly hands of fixing errors isn't enough for me... but to each their own.
@sabik@shanesemler I can agree to an extent. However, it has to be more than typing words into a prompt. If I send a paragraph to an artist and ask them to draw something for me, I am not the artist... they are... but ai isn't human, so that same paragraph given to ai means the content was created by nobody... ai has no artistic input... if a human takes that and transforms it into something of their own, then we can talk about that being art... I'm not interested in it, but maybe we can call it art of some sort.
Add comment