Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it’s unlikely that your work will be impactful.
I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.
Good take.
Don’t hate the tools, hate what capitalism turns them into and uses them for.
Reminds me of the old panic that photography would be the death of painters. It was shortly followed by an all time boom in art and creativity as painters tried new things and moved on from photorealism.
There’s still so much room left for human art and artists even in a post-AI world, as long as we keep rejecting the slop and supporting actual artists. Then maybe new art forms will emerge. Who knows!
Have you not seen the AI generated QR code embedded in an image ? I don’t think it can be done without AI, Don’t know if you would consider it art, but I do : for example here is the first one I got when googling it https://www.qrafted.ai/img/gallery/girl-3.jpeg
Like all AI things unfortunately the web is flooded with them now…
This is a very cool concept, but has anyone actually gotten this to read as a qr code?
I’ve tried a bunch of apps without any luck.
Yeah. I have the same question.
Embedding the features of one image into another to create an illusion is a task I’d consider AI for, IF the artist performing that task can be propelled by using the output as a base. If it takes far more manual correction by artist to the point that it takes longer to make a finished piece, or if the time spent enjoying the process is diminished, it’s no longer worth it.
AI in art should be about automating the tasks that require scale or repetition, like how 3D graphics took much of the mathematical work from artists, letting them focus on sculpting their forms precisely.
Time freed from automating one task should be spent by the artist on another task, such that the work is done faster AND is appealing in a clear and obvious way.
The most “creative” way I’ve seen this done so far is using separate prompts for different 2d image elements in still painting, which appears to take longer to make less consistent results.
It feels like prompters rely on the divided tastes of the internet to convince people that their art looks good to someone, just not the current viewer.
Oops, just wanted to write a quick comment but it evolved into me giving some of my thoughts on AI gen as a means of artistry. Oh well, not deleting this now.
I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art.
Most self proclaimed AI artists just type a prompt, maybe do a bit of “prompt engineering” (Read: putting the name of a good artist on the prompt) and then in-paint (Read: re-prompting, but only affects a specific area). That does not give you enough control over the drawing to do anything interesting.
I say this from personal experience. Even small differences is facial expressions, too small to be described with words, can make a big impact. The no. reason artists don’t use AI and dislike it is because it doesn’t given enough control over the final image, because it does not let them put in details which cannot be described through words. You might say we might someday have an AI that (somehow) gives you more control, but that would nullify the whole “advantage” of AI: Not having to spend time worrying about the details. If you are going to spend 4 hours prompting in details… you could have just gotten a better result by just drawing it yourself.
Think of it like making a level in Mario Maker VS making a game in a game engine. Sure, making things in Mario Maker is faster than making a game yourself, but it doesn’t give you the same fine grain control that making a game from scratch would. (But even this is not a perfect analogy has, in Mario Maker you actually get to choose where the blocks go, instead of with AI, where you can only describe how the blocks go and hope the AI gets it right with little hope of editing it yourself.)
Actually, about that “editing it yourself”. In this hypothetical AI Mario Maker scenario, you could go into Mario Maker’s editor mode and edit the level with the same amount of detail a normal, handcrafted, Mario Maker level would, but with AI image gen, you get the image and… Ya, about has useful as any other downloaded image. Artists typically create layers to do their art thing, but AI output puts everything in one layer, making hard to edit. I could go on this, but I don’t have all the time in the world to write this. Someone posted this video on !fuck_ai@lemmy.world , where an AI “artists” quit AI because of these problems of lack of control. (Don’t judge me based on the video, I found it on the aforementioned community here (lemmy.ml link))
I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
That’s the multi billion dollar the AI companies are trying to solve, having to pay wages. The far right loves this as they feel like those who worked hard to develop artistic skills are below them somehow. Part of the conservative rhetoric. AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
I feel like people who want talk and argue about AI should know how the training works at a mathematical level. I swear the number of people who act like it’s magic is way too much. I say this because it would give you a really good idea of how specialized training won’t solve the lack of originality problem. I haven’t had a refresher on this so I might be misremembering some things… Any who, this playlist is pretty good I think.
The problems you describe with control is severely outdated. There are tools specifically to allow you more control outside of prompts. Ipadapters, controlnets, etc… invoke and krita support layers and all sorts of other normal artistic methods for image editing. For people who use ai image gen more seriously, prompting is just the tip of the iceberg.
For the insane amount of slop generated every day though, sure, prompting is all they use.
That would be possible, in an abstract way.
Let’s say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.
Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.
This will be a model that only knows the artist’s work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.
Now, let’s do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.
Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That’s a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.
I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.
It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.
It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.
It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.
Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.
It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.
It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.
Not to mention the ecological damage.
That’s my secondary issue with it.
My issue is less with AI and more with how capitalism has mucked up an opportunity.
If I ask Taylor Swift to make a song about a chicken eating marshmallows and she does, all the lyrics, music, production, and voice, are me and not Taylor. I made it. Me. That’s how AI art works. Even if Taylor was also just copying other artists. All me. I’m so talented my words can only be appreciated in prompts to Taylor. You wouldn’t understand. Buy my marshmallow song.
The same people saying shit like “if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” are calling training AI on publically available data “stealing”
Because obviously pirating games & shows for personal use does the same amount of harm as a corporate entity stealing the work of hundreds of thousands of writers and artists in order to turn a profit
- That’s not how AI works.
- How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
- Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
- The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
- You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
- You don’t own the definition of art.
- AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
That’s not how AI works
How does it work then? I see lot’s pf people claiming to know how it works… only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
How so?
The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
- True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
- I got news for ya.
You don’t own the definition of art.
This is not about definitions, I won’t spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online
Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
The fact that you think humans don’t use neural networks trained by experience to generate art (or anything else we do) tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
That’s not how AI works.
How does it work ?
How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
Strawman? maybe?, it’s unclear how it’s related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
This i agree with.
You don’t own the definition of art.
I agree with this also.
AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
AI is for profit, not for everyone.
The major difference here is the scale but you’ll have to look in to that yourself.
4 Is definitely wrong
7 Yes
And I’m sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are “collateral” products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
That’s why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.
- I wasn’t wrong but i should have qualified it. There are instances where companies have pirated art, but the majority is stuff you can freely access online. I agree that they shouldn’t have the pirated art that was behind pay walls. What they do with it isn’t the problem there, it is that they have it. I should have said that the pirating of art isn’t fundamental to the process and really probably was due to overzealous people tasked with finding data to train on and who, like most of us, grew up in the Naptster/limewire era.
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
-
If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
-
If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
-
If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
-
If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Literally everything you just said to justify the position that “AI art ain’t art” depended either on money or on legal decisions.
Art is all about money? Laws dictate what is and is not art?
Art isn’t all about money. That’s the point. AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated (or at least credited??). AI-generated imagery is 100% about profit only. It’s about pushing artists out of the picture—a thing companies have been trying to do for years.
Artists should at least have a say in where their work goes, even if it’s not about them being financially compensated. It’s about having a fair conversation, instead of billionaires dominating the conversation once again.
Art isn’t all about money.
And yet everything in your comment was about who is “benefiting” from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after “art isn’t all about the money” is:
AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated
So it’s not about the money, but gimmie money.
Desiring that the people who make art not starve to death is too much to ask now? We live under Capitalism! It’s money or death.
Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you’ve been using with me has been “money money pay money.”
This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
AI images ain’t art.
And
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art.
But the only actual argument you’ve come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
Okay, so let’s imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it’s all nice and fair.
Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you’re concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
I don’t think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let’s say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn’t pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
Don’t bother trying to use logic or the actual definition of art with these AntiAI cultists. “AI art isn’t art.” is more of a religious chant with them than a well thought out position. Their types also declaired photograpy as “not art” back in the day. The NeoLuddites of today don’t remember that and don’t even know that they are aping the same misdefinition of art for the same reasons. But they are. Educating them is sort of an uphill battle as it is with any kind of Luddite.
Yup
Photography is art. You have to have an eye for a shot. You capture a moment with a device you’ve spent time learning and adjusting to get it just right. Art takes time. Typing shit into a prompt field is not comparable. But okay.
The funny thing is I’ve been in tech for 20 years. I’m a digital and traditional artist that has been drawing in some form since I was a kid. My dad worked for NASA and was a big influence. I’ve built software that uses AI. So I’m not some dummy that is against all technological advancements. I’m against tech that is used to exploit artists, and tech bros that claim to be artists because they wrote a prompt in 5 minutes.
The word you are thinking of is not ‘art’ it’s ‘skill’. A stick man that takes 3 seconds is art. The person who sketched it is an ‘artist’. A painting a master works on for a decade is art and the guy who made it is an ‘artist’. One takes more skill than the other, but they both get to be called art. Nobody of note is claiming the skills are comparable, but you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core. The same as the people who claimed photograpy wasn’t art because all the person did was “have an eye for the prompt… I mean shot. And curate a generated image, i mean capture an image on film and pass it off as their ‘art’.”
“Skill” is indeed better suited here. The problem is also who holds the keys. The current state of capitalism wants the shortest route to produced assets because it means they can cut even more costs and reduce headcount. Get rid of writers and now artists? That’s more money in their pockets. It’s amazing tech that has been created with the wrong goals in mind, by people that had these conversations behind closed doors, with all key figures excluded—and I haven’t even touched on the environmental impacts.
Art for me has always held unique power because I think of the steps the creator went through and the pivots they made. Why they decided with this color palette; what inspired them; what it means to them. All things that are devoid in AI-generated art. I’m also heavily biased as an artist and former graphic artist—both roles that are very quickly vanishing. I got lucky by pivoting to programming.
Marx predicted that automation would bring about an era where people would work alongside machines to maintain and keep them running smoothly. The human’s job would be made easier. Turns out the real capitalist desire is full on replacement of the worker in a lot of cases and IMO that has tainted the idea of modern day AI.
-
Keep fighting the good fight. If we can just be a little bit more elitist and haulier than thou I’m sure we’ll make AI art go away.
Dude. DUDE. Really?
Oh no, we made talentless duschebro sad by dissing his favourite slop creating forestburner. Whatever we will do
Exactly. If you just insult people enough, they will surely chabge their mind!!!
We are not trying to change your mind. We are making fun of you.
If we’re just a bit nice to those fascists they’ll change their mind 😢
Real :3
Yeah, that is pretty much how it goes. Some nice person shares a piece of AI art they find interesting and the AntiAI bros bully them nonstop and proceed to word vomit their nonsense for the next 3 years all over every site even when it isn’t relevant.
What’s it like not being creative? Must suck.
You’d know.
Even your reply was AI generated from stolen replies. Amazing!
Yes, my brain was trained on many sources and that was the reply that was generated. Now you are getting the hang of how AI works. Congrats. Take your new knowledge and go do great things in the world.
Machine learning is a net positive for technology and society, IF used wisely. The people who consume art are distressed that they can no longer filter for AI. AI images would be less controversial if we didn’t have so much of it masquerading as human art.
This technology is not the issue, it’s how people use it to the detriment of society and the environment.
I am not convinced this is even an actual problem, just what people are worried about happening.
It’s like any other meme. Being grounded in actual reality isn’t important.
It’s just people repeating and remixing a category of content and confusing their outrage for a reasoned opinion.
Don’t I know it xD got down voted to hell for saying maybe there are some innocent people who live in Israel too.
Odd that there’s so much hate for the image generation. I hate AI, but not for the images. I have an image generator myself and it’s funny as hell. I hate AI for ruining the internet. After August of 2023, every search engine became borderline useless, and every “informative” website became auto generated dogshit.
Image generation is often done remotely, using massive amounts of energy and water cooling. I enjoy the funny images as well, but I don’t like the massive volume of AI images that make it tougher to find human artists.
using massive amounts of energy and water cooling
Those things cost money. If it’s truly “massive amounts” then why are so many image generators giving it away for free?
I generate images locally on my home computer so I actually know how much energy and cooling is required per image, it’s really not that much. I’d use way more if I was making the image by hand in an image editing program.
That’s just nonsense they made up, or they are confusing their anti-AI memes.
An image generator uses no more power than a video game. Most run on consumer graphics cards.
LLMs are the ones that use a lot of resources but “massive amounts” is a vague term that has no useful meaning. No matter how you try to refute their statement, they can always just declare that they mean something else.
Generating the image does not take much power, though training them does; I should have been clearer.
When I say “massive amounts,” I mean a company like Microsoft opening large data centers that require enough energy and water to disrupt local communities. Obviously this isn’t an AI issue, and Microsoft doesn’t train for image generation AFAIK, but the fact remains that training an AI model requires an order of magnitude of more resources than most consumer or corporate applications.
If AI models were only getting more efficient, I wouldn’t worry about this, but companies tend to scale up and use more resources to make larger models.
And the same calculus applies to LLMs as to the image generators. If they’re so hideously expensive how is it that companies are giving access away for free? The goodness of their own hearts? Obviously they would like for people to pay for services and are using the LLMs as a loss leader, but they’re giving away so much in the way of LLM usage that I’ve never felt any need to pay for it myself. The average Joe isn’t their target market, the average Joe doesn’t have a big enough demand to be worth charging them for it.
You’re still on Lemmy, so you get downvoted for any semblance of approving technological advancements if it includes the wrong 2 letters
Careful now, Lemmy is the most anti AI echo chamber there is
People love it when they find something they can bully people with and feel self righteous about it. Especially when they feel like they have a big enough gang to back them up.
Linux and windows. Another topic to avoid unless you instantly want it derailed.
Funny how they are totally fine with using tools like Autofill with photoshop though. The hypocrisy is what’s the funniest.
True, but I’ve been noticing a trend in a positive direction over time. Look at the upvote/downvote balances, it’s still a net negative whenever you say something good about AI but there are a lot more upvotes than there used to be.
I think the anti-AI rage is dying down. People are exhausted by it, and more and more people are actually trying out AI tools and finding them to be fun and useful. And the Fediverse is getting bigger, too, which dilutes the bubble with more competing views.
Sure but then you have the anti-AntiAI bro replyguy bully bros in the comments, which imo is the real tragedy
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
