My doodle this week. I trace from cute pictures I see on the internet.
I rushed to dig through my old high school art class work and found this:
Love it!
that do be a nice doodle
Ty!
cute
Can we just cut the back and forth and accept AI as another tool and let soulless AI content die off naturally. No one listens to music that’s all autotune after we decided that it was shit. The same will be said for AI.
Some people need something to rage and virtue signal against. Those who work in private STEM sectors or took machine learning classes years before the LLM craze already understand the tool is here and are willing to learn to work with it if applicable in their job or daily life.
Those who don’t understand anything about the science of machine learning and are angry at the how megacorporations got away with unconsentually scraping their copyright infringed data off the internet for the first iterations of training data still get to let off some steam by calling it ‘hyped autocomplete just as bad as NFTs that will never do what a person can’.
If I were an artsy type whos first exposure to ML was having my work stolen followed by the thief bragging to my face about how copy protection laws dont matter to the powerful and now they can basically copy my honed style 1 to 1 with a computer to sell as an product, I would be unreasonably pissed too and not interested this whole 'AI’thing. Megacorps made chatGPT and stable diffusion using my work therefore AI bad. I get it.
That said, I’m not an artsy type or an idealist. I’m a practical engineer who builds systems to process the flows of information and energy with the tools available at my dispersal. Theres more to machine learning than proprietary models made with stolen information to be sold to th masses. Instead models are just the next new way to process large datasets full of complicated information. Its just that now were taking cues from natures biological information processing systems. Whether such processes prove more certain and effective to the old analog and digital ways have yet to be seen. Perhaps using these new tools will open up entirely different ways of treating information for all of society. Perhaps it will be just another niche thing for researchers to write papers about. Time will tell.
I will see ai as a tool when it behaves like a tool to help human creativity and not syphon it to make derivative trash; AI has potential but current applications are very dependent on training and mimicking content that was already made. Why waste my life viewing that with so many great artists and writers out there?
It does behave like a tool. Just like every other tool it can be used improperly.
bullshit! By the way who is your favorite AI artist? tell me something good about their work?
I like neuralviz. It’s really funny and has a lot of continuity jokes.
I don’t know any AI artists. Me i gues… I generated a coupled… they sucked… but I like the guy anyway.
Places i would deploy AI:
-Foggy background scenes
-Random textures
-custom shadin
I could go on but I’m not a professional artist so there could be already great tools for those use cases. I’m sure I could find a use if I spent more time in the space.
I think that if you can’t make the art without relying on AI then it isn’t art.
I can’t design a Minecraft house (art) without having access to Minecraft
I value your discussion on this topic, even if I disagree, but this specific point isnt very good imoMinecraft doesn’t replace the mental processes involved in making the art though
I used to play Minecraft and watch movies at the same time because neither required much mental processes, what did M$ do to MC?!
awesome
Thats my finest AI slop.
fr?😡
Yeah, even passes detection.
This is the only one that detected it 100%, every other one thought it was real.
Dangerously based.
fr? 😂
Haha yeah, passes detection as well.
As you wish
The line work on this is very expressive.
You are clearly a connoisseur
Yes. I am. Let me share my credentials to make sure my audience understands my credibility:
- 6 years in art school
- 12 years as middle school teacher I could go on, but I don’t think that’s enough to make my case.
Thank you for reading my post.
Be real, this is clearly an AI generated image.
No, I can feel the intention of the artist flowing through the napkin.
Here’s my shitty drawing of something AI can’t draw
Time to move the goal posts again:
My career as an artist is in shambles
You didn’t even draw it on a napkin, you used a computer. Real Artists don’t use digital tools.
Oh wait, it’s not the 90s anymore and that argument is dead? Oops, sorry I was in a coma for a few decades.
Welcome to the world of tomorrow!
Sorry about, well, the state of everything
I’ll be pedantic and point out that only a robot would fill a glass of wine to the brim. Asides from that it looks legit, though I wonder how well it would handle generating a glass of wine that is being held out drank from…
That’s actually pretty good depiction of a chunk of roast beef with a revolving rotor attached to it and flying upwards.
Randomly made this when clearing a pen’s nib on a post-it
this is some really good shitty half-assed doodle
what an esteemed little guy :)
Somewhat related: Has anyone else gotten the fountain pen version of this? I’ve tried three of them over the years hoping for a functional refillable pen, but they’ve all stopped flowing or never worked at all.
You’d think they would fix the design eventually, but alas?
This looks cool :}
Great pen! Adorable doodle!
Probably an unpopular take, but I think it’s got its uses. My artistic skills is not too great, and I don’t want to spend the time to get better or pay someone to draw a banner or icon for a Lemmy community or D&D character, for example, because it’s not that important to me. I’m cool if an AI can get kinda close to what I want and it’s nothing I consider to be load-bearing. To be clear, I mostly use it as something to fill up the blank spaces.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while. It can also be a fucking hilarious toy if you’re bored. I gave Dall-e a picture of my wife and her sisters and asked it to give me an upscaled version of the picture and it basically drew them as the canker sisters. Good times.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while
yeah, probably because the person that generated that image actually took time to write a detailed prompt, used appropriate settings on good hardware, generated many images, and maybe even fed it some composition images to base the generated image off, instead of just typing in “shark motorbike”
evenly lit, ink smudged weird, camera somehow perfectly on top without occluding any light
may snakes bite your balls and all your milk turn sour
do it again but stare at grass for a few hours
Edit: Also i drew “your” guy pregnant
Gave it a fat ass too
Dude this is a masterpiece, it’s in no way half assed.
I think it’s finest AI slop…
Everyone is welcome to do just that in [email protected] :)
- There is no “AI”.
- There’s nothing inherently wrong or bad with generated art. The assumption that generated art is “slop” is literally the inverted assumption that “AI” will save us. But in reality there’s lots of cool pictures and many cool videos that were generated.
- If you’re mad about copyright/exploitation, the actual problem has always been capitalism.
Absolutely! I want to see art and human expression and not corporate generated productivity outputs.
“I judge art on the basis of how it was made, not on its merit in terms of the emotions and thoughts it elicits from me”
I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the artA stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as “bland”, “samey”, “wrong”. The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
The intent of the artist
There is someone using the model and it’s their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don’t consider the intent of the camera.
The context surrounding the art
The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It’s also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren’t being fair.
We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn’t be the defining factor.
My own interpretation of the art
You largely ignored this since it is essentially “the thoughts and emotions it envokes”. It is also arguably the most important.
We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don’t call people stupid.
I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
Is it not possible that how something is made also elicits emotions and thoughts?
Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
Ok weirdo. Enjoy your literal poop!
There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Good thing that this isn’t what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that “pro-lifers” use to reframe the argument about abortion and women’s rights.
It’s always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren’t compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn’t even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they’d rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That’s what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.
Imagine arguing that flavor is what is important in a dish and not the type of knife used to cut the vegetables, and have someone respond he’d rather drink piss.
Its more like arguing a soulless robot should make your food built upon stolen recipes, not only are the recipes stolen but that robot cannot taste nor understand flavor. All it understands is the words of the recipes and sometimes not even that, it than needs to make new recipes without being able to taste it. Your food will taste as bland and souless as the robot who cannot taste it, even if it does taste good you’ll know its basically just a worse version based on stolen recipes.
Bruh a “stolen” recipe made by a robot tastes exactly the same as a purchased recipe made by a human. “Love” is not actually a real ingredient in a meal.
And all things being equal… I would rather have a robot serve me than coerce some human.
It simply is, premade and mass produced machine food simply doesn’t taste as good as if you make it yourself (if you’re decent at cooking)
I mean I eat food made by a robot basically every day and it’s pretty good.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a huge amount of the food that is eaten in the world is made by “robots”. It ain’t the Keebler Elves in those factories baking your vanilla sandwich cookies, that’s for sure.
Go watch any video on mass produced food and you’ll see that it is made by machines. Drinks are mixed, bottled and packed without any human intervention. You would have a hard time trying to find a dish that you eat that was not prepared in some part by soulless, tasteless machines.
Those robots were still configured by humans to produce a product the humans designed.The automatically produced food is still human food.
what if the knife were made out of the skulls of infants
Then that is a fucked up knife, but doesn’t change anything about the dish.
The argument is: the dish requires the use of the fucked-up knife.
If AI art only used ethically-sourced data, there’d be a lot less objection to it.
Yes, it is. We live in capitalism.
Why does AI art have “no authenticity”?
Because if you use words that only have objective definitions then you can arbitrarily move your definition around if people come up with counter-examples.
It’s a way of creating an argument that means nothing and also can’t be argued against on Internet forums where there are no rules (unlike, say a debate stage or court room where you have to rationally prove your points).
“I find the ethics involved in the creation of something to be irrelevant.”
It’s called capitalism. There are no ethics in how anything is ever created. If you’re mad about people being exploited, then fight capitalism.
But poeple just sound corny hating on every work of generated art. It’s very possible to make nice pictures and videos with a computer.
No ethical consumption under capitalism doesn’t apply to “luxury” goods like art and entertainment. That’s like arguing that it’s okay for people to still use Reddit and Twitter after all the stuff from the past few years because “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” This isn’t Amazon or Wal-Mart killing off local businesses so that they’re the only place you can find stuff that we’re talking about. This is not reading Harry Potter or buying merch because JK Rowling is a TERF. It’s super easy to avoid companies like that, I do it all the time. I stopped using streaming services (and TV before that), and there’s easily a dozen video game companies that I refuse to buy from due to the way they treat their employees and customers. And protect sexual assault. Let’s not forget that Ubisoft and Blizzard both are guilty of that.
This isn’t about people making art with digital tools. I do that all the time, and AI gen can easily be a super cool tool for that. Except for the whole stolen labor part of it and people using it to do a corporation while using excuses like “no ethical consumption” to absolve themselves of stealing the skills and work of artists.
Creating art is considered a useless skill looked upon with contempt by society, yet the product is highly coveted, and AI is being used by people who want the reward but don’t want to put in the effort and don’t want to pay those who can put in the effort fair compensation for their work. It’s merely another step in the long road of devaluing artists.
No ethical consumption under capitalism doesn’t apply to “luxury” goods like art and entertainment.
Do those “luxury” goods exist under a different economic system than capitalism? If not, then this argument makes no sense.
Never heard anyone arguing over the ethics of the mining of lapis lazuli, and i think slavery and human misery trump plagerism.
So if ethics define art then DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc are not artists
Lapis lazuli? Maybe not, but lithium mines are a constant source of criticism for those reasons, and your simplification of the world to an either or scenario is incredibly disingenuous.
If you think that people like Da Vinci and Michaelangelo had nothing to say, then you know nothing about artists. Da Vinci hated the Pope who commissioned the Sistine Chapel so much that he painted him burning in Hell directly behind the altar. He was a gay man who had relationships with his apprentices and performed illegal autopsies on bodies to study the human anatomy during a time when it was considered descecrating the dead, which formed the foundation of modern medicine’s understanding of the human body.
You’re just making excuses so you feel better about stealing the labor of others.
No one is making excuses, I’m just pointing out the hipocrisy of saying that the art is less valid because of the tools used.
And yes, I believe a person who has an artistic idea but not the skills to represent it should be able to do it though AI, just writing a prompt doesn’t make it art just like drawing a sunflower very realistically doesn’t make it art. Is music less art because it’s made with a synth or in Ableton?
No one is making excuses, I’m just pointing out the hipocrisy of saying that the art is less valid because of the tools used.
Good thing that’s not something I said, then. So what you’re doing is arguing a point that nobody said in order to reframe the actual argument into something different. Making excuses to avoid confronting the actual argument.
And yes, I believe a person who has an artistic idea but not the skills to represent it should be able to do it though AI
So do I. But if you’re doing that with an LLM made by a company that’s using unethically sourced training data to avoid paying the artists who made the art used for training, then you’re buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience and that makes the art bad. AI slop isn’t just slop because of the quality. It’s also because it’s wage theft. People respect the shitty napkin drawing more because, regardless of the quality, it shows that you were willing to put in the effort without the fancy tools while also not committing a corporation in the process.
you’re buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience
The electronic device you used to make this post was also made by exploiting wage laborers for the benefit of capitalists. Yet, you found that device to be so convenient that you still bought and used it anyway. The same could be said for all of the other goods and services that you use.
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in anothers
Said electronic device is a requirement to hold a job in my country and ensure I don’t end up homeless. It’s the same as owning a car here. If you have neither a phone or a reliable form of transport (meaning a car in this public transit-less shithole of a country), getting and holding a job is incredibly difficult.
This is one of the reasons that the UN has considered access to the internet a basic human right as of the 2000s or so.
Owning a phone and using the orphan crushing machine to make funny pictures on the internet are not equal.
Tbh, this is a valid take, but it’s just as valid to judge art based on the experience of viewing it.
(You can take this as agreeing or disagreeing with you, or both)
It is true it is an exercise in futility to try to give it a strict definition, as well as being very subjective. Nice vid, it’s always fun to find quality youtubers I don’t know.
Idiot: “AI” will save us all!
Genius: “AI” is complete slop!!
\s
To be fair, “AI will save us” is a take that is incredibly stupid.
This, but unironically.
Depends on the artist. Shitty at drawing but got skills on the comp? Ill take the art you used AI for.
Plenty of AI slop out there sure, but there is also plenty of drawn/painted/sculpted/whatever slop out there as well.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
To me, it’s more that I get a glimpse of the human behind the art, even or especially if they’re shitty at drawing. That’s why I also like memes which are thrown together haphazardly. If it’s pixel-perfect imagery, I don’t see much from that at all.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
This has never been what the issue is. The issue isn’t the tool, but how it’s made and how it’s used.
AI gen programs are almost to a fault created using art without permission with the express purpose of then using said programs to put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job. Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on. They are basically the definition of wage theft in their current form.
You might as well be arguing that Temu brand fast fashion is just as good as any other kind of clothing.
And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They’re jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
using art without permission
Every artist does this all the time. The actual problem is “IP” - a system of capitalist control whereby the rich control everything and workers are still exploited.
put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job.
Nobody can steal another person’s skills. If people are losing their jobs, the problem is being forced to serve capital in order to survive. That’s a much bigger and more important problem than “AI slop”.
Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on.
Without artists, artists would have nothing to train on. But in reality artists will always exist.
wage theft
This is the biggest form of theft under capitalism but somehow people only complain about it in terms of “AI”. Again this is a direct result of the exploitation of worker by capital. There is nothing inherently exploitative about making art on a computer (apart from the manufacturing of the computer which is extremely exploitative).
And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They’re jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
If this is even real? It seems like two completely difference category. And more importantly who cares? Petty AF.
AI bros fall into 2 categories in my experience, the “who cares, picture making machine go brrr” group and the “I can make works that rival the great artists like Da Vinci with just a few words, thus making me the winner and better than any so-called artist” group.
As for your argument about artists doing the same thing all the time, there’s a fundamental difference between artists and AI: a person learns the rules/reasons behind something while AI merely generates a statistical average. An AI is incapable of understanding concepts like perspective and lighting, nor can it learn anatomy. It’s much closer to tracing art than it is to going “I really like the way that guy does hands, I’m gonna learn to do that.” If you write a haiku, you’re not stealing your poem from other writers. You know the rules that make a poem a haiku. But an AI, asked to write a haiku, doesn’t know what makes a haiku a haiku, it just knows that its statistics say that x number of syllables is followed by a line break, etc.
If artists can’t exist without having artists to train on, then where did the first artist come from? Where did Impressionism come from? It hasn’t always existed as an art form. Who created the art that the Mona Lisa was generated from? I can tell you: the actual person that Da Vinci was drawing and the years upon years of study of things like anatomy and lighting that he had. The cavemen who drew stick figure horses on cave walls didn’t train on other stick figures, they drew what they saw in nature through the lense of their own interpretation and creativity.
Nobody can steal another person’s skills.
Look at your own words here: Nobody. No person. AI isn’t a person stealing the skills of another, it’s a tool using patterns and schematics created by people to make knockoffs. And just because this is a problem of capitalism stealing from workers doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem that we should address.
Again this is a direct result of the exploitation of worker by capital. There is nothing inherently exploitative about making art on a computer (apart from the manufacturing of the computer which is extremely exploitative).
This is what I’m saying. Making art using digital tools? Totally fine, I do it myself and even have a side business from the stuff I make in Blender. Using the tools created by companies committing wage theft rather than paying artists a living wage because it’s cheaper and easier for you? Not okay. It’s like buying stuff from Temu. You don’t have to subscribe to Netflix and watch all the latest shows. You don’t have to use Stable Diffusion to make memes any more than you have to use Reddit.
If 2 things were to change, nobody except for the stupid “photography will kill painting” people would care: people using AI to avoid paying people a living wage, and people who think that using AI makes them better than others.
Not referring to the Adobe model that compensates artists in the training set, but besides them there has been great debate on the ethics of ingesting & regurgitating. (“but small humans do it” etc)
Which is to say of course it could be the best art in the world and it wouldn’t be beautiful in those eyes.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
The algorithms are beautiful, revolutionary, a true achievement of humanity.
The way the corporations have used those algorithms is unethical, inartistic, a true embarrassment of humanity.
The way the corporations have used…
This is true of everything under capitalism. And it doesn’t mean the art is slop.
For example our phones are made by slave labor but nobody is posting memes about how all phones are slop. Maybe they should do. It would be a better cause than crying about generated art.
I’m not sure I’m convinced by your argument. It seems to boil down to:
- Thing A is bad.
- Thing B is also bad, but you didn’t say anything about that.
- Therefore thing A is not bad.
System A is bad
System A produced Product 1 and Product 2
Product 1 and Product 2 are therefore bad because they were produced through System A
Criticizing Product 2 without criticizing Product 1 is an incomplete analysis; and criticizing either Product is foolish because System A is the cause of the issue
System A must be destroyed in order to prevent it from creating new Products that will be bad, and to undo the badness of the existing Products.
System A is capitalism
This is Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap.
These heroes act like they’re patrons of actual artists, or do anything with actual art other than ignore it, or do anything with creative works that would require art but don’t have it. They don’t seek out prototypes of games (board or video) they just sit back and consume and then have the nerve to whine about what’s produced for them.
It’s less a tool and more a short cut. and short cuts are a disservice to the artest and the art appreciater.
Ok yeah. That’s what they said about the hammer. It’s a disservice to the fine artisans using rocks.
… No, they didn’t.
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn’t like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
One of those things is not like the others. AI “art” is just feeding an AI a prompt until it spits out something you like. Some people may do a touch up to hide the hallucinations, but they aren’t actually creating the image.
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
Sharing AI art has the same vibe as telling people about your dreams.
Some dreams are wild tho
Even worse.
It’s like someone describing a tv show you don’t care about in painful detail, only without the enthusiasm.
