- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
There are difficult ‘AI’ tools.
Look up controlnet workflows or VACE, just to start, much less little niches in vapoursynth pipelines or image editing layers. You could spend days training them, messing with the implementation, then doing the manual work of carefully and deliberately applying them. This has, in fact, has been happening in film production for awhile, just in disguise.
Same with, say, LLMs used in game mods where appropriate, like the Rimworld mod. That’s careful creative expression.
…As usual, it’s tech bros fucking everything up by dumbing it down to zero-option prompt box and then shoving that in front of as many people as possible to try and monopolize their attention.
In other words, I agree with the author that what I hate about ‘AI art’ is the low effort ‘sloppiness.’ It’s gross, like rotten fast food. It makes me sad. And that’s 99.999% of all AI art.
…But it doesn’t have to be like that.
It’s like saying the concept of the the fediverse sucks because Twitter/Facebook suck, even if 99.999% of what folks see is the slop of the later. It’s not fair to the techniques, and it’s not holding the jerks behind mass slop proliferation accountable.
Precisely. AI art is bad because the users making “art” with it essentially have such bad taste they’ll publish anything the AI shits out.
There exist artistic ways to use AI as a tool, but none of them are easy. In fact they might be harder than just painting the damn picture yourself.
deleted by creator
I’ve spent five, six hours getting an ai generated image to be just what I want using stable diffusion models, comfyui, various Lora’s, op adapters, etc. I’ve made ai generated songs that I’ve taken the considerable time writing rhyming lyrics that express what I want.
Generating ai art doesn’t make me an artist. Generating ai music doesn’t make you a musician. Though if you’ve written the lyrics yourself it DOES make you a poet. And if you’re getting down into the nitty gritty fine tuning modules (which I have done), as well as using more complex tools available, it IS difficult and it DOES take time to learn.
This shit can get REALLY technical and there is a lot to learn and it can be very difficult to produce something you’re proud of.
Does it mean making something with ai means it’s as difficult as making real art? No. They’re completely different skill sets.
Does writing the lyrics to an ai generated song make you a musician? No. Do writing engaging, catchy lyrics that you have a computer into a song make you a good lyricist? Yes.
People use familiar terms to describe new skill sets and technology. The new thing can’t be hard because the old thing is hard. writing lyrics doesn’t matter as an act of personal creation because an ai did the rest. When you start really looking at this shit and drawing you see dimensions of nuance far beyond “ai bad”
I find this li’l guy hilarious for some reason.
tl;dr - “art” generated by LLMs is ultimately lame and uninspiring. It’s probably never going to inspire people very much. It’s a parlor trick and everyone intrinsically recognizes it. Don’t expect to be taken seriously as a creator if this is your primary tool.
I am skeptical about “never”, but right now I agree that’s true. I expect it to be true for many years to come. That being said, we have seen a lot of improvement (over even the last few months) in AI image quality, composition, and prompt adherence.
In order for an art piece to exist, an artist have to have something to say by said art. Fancy autocomplete is not an entity, it’s an algorithm to generate something looking like something else, and even if it crawls out of the uncanny valley at some point (which I’m not sure is possible), the best case scenario is that it will generate something that looks like some people did at some point. It’s not what art is, and it’s not what people look for in art. This will never change, this is the never in said never.
AGI will create art, but at this point we’re further away from it than we were 10 years ago, or even 50 years ago (and I would argue it’s a goos thing)That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that it’s going to be increasingly difficult (for the layperson) to tell if a work is by a human or computer. You and I may think there’s some sort of moral superiority in human art, but the average TikTok user doesn’t give a fuck… and they outnumber us greatly.
Your opinion of an average person is overly negative.
Generated shit is the new Muzak, the new Alegria clipart, but done very badly. When a person who doesn’t care about music and doesn’t understand music hears Muzak they don’t think about it at all, that’s kind of almost the point of it. It’s an amalgamation of a corporate default sequence of sounds invented to be approved by a committee. And that’s the best that generators can wish to do, and I suspect there is a fundamental quality to it that will prevent it from being that ever.
That’s the thing about art, intentionality, it’s not that “human art” is somehow superiour, it’s that only human art exists, copying algorithms are doing copies, and even if sometimes it works, you don’t get art without an artist saying you something.
Obviously, people who don’t enjoy art don’t care. But that doesn’t really matter.
To me, thins kinda screams of “I suffered so you should too”. There are good arguments against AI art, but this one doesn’t resonate with me in any capacity.
It is good that AI has made art more accessible. Art is meant for everyone, and anything that makes it more democratic is great.
There have been painters who are blind who made great paintings. People without hands who learned how to paint with their feet.
Art was already accessable to everyone, ai drones say that it wasn’t to feel better.
There are different kinds of accessibility. While I admire people with disabilities who were so dedicated in the pursuit of art, there’s more to it than pure desire.
Art takes gift. It takes a lot of time to make it into talent, skill. It commonly takes a lot of money for the courses, materials, etc. And in the modern world, not everyone can realistically have or afford all that.
When I talk of accessibility, I don’t mean “with a ton of effort, every person can technically become at least a bad artist”. I mean “everyone needs to create, yet not everyone can dedicate their life to it”.
AI art allows us to communicate our visions and ideas, which is to me the most important parts of art overall, without having to grind through art classes. This, in turn, means we can hear and see new voices, ones that previously were never heard.
Art does not take gift. The myth of the naturally talented artist needs to die because that’s never been true. It takes effort, like you said, but it does NOT take courses and classes, especially in the modern world. There’s everything you need to learn right there on the Internet and in books. You just have to try.
And that’s the thing, you used to try and know that it was fun to make stuff, but at some point you wanted to make something that looked good and didn’t have the skill for it, so you gave up instead of having fun with it anyway.
But here’s the thing you forgot: the process. When you draw, you make choices. Where to put sister and brother, there to put the sun, how many windows are in your house, etc. The choices being made while making art are where you actually get creative. That’s where the happy accidents happen or the changes you decide on. It’s where the actual express happens, between wanting the picture and having the picture.
AI eliminates that crucial step. It eliminates choice. It makes those choices for you, cribbing notes off of other people’s choices, not yours.
So no, it doesn’t communicate anyone’s voice. Ai repeats static based off of other people’s voices and choices, not yours.
It’s very sad and somewhat indicative of our society that you only care about the finished product, and not the part that actually nourishes you.
It’s absolutely true. All you have to do is spend any amount of time around someone that has never drawn before that has the talent and you’ll be just devastated at how good they are on their first attempt. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people that have been drawing for a couple decades that never have been able to make it past crude representations.
There are various levels of talent and it’s possible to maybe become a bad artist by grinding, but you cannot become a good artist with a complete lack of visual art talent. I’m not sure why visual artists are unable to see this until you tell them okay so everyone can sing and then they quickly admit. “Okay, not everybody can sing.”
Everyone can sing. Even if they sing badly that’s at least their own voice, and no one is fooled into thinking they are singing when they hit play on their phone, so why think someone’s an artist when they get a computer to make an image?
I’m telling you that “artist talent” is literally just when someone likes drawing enough they keep going even when they aren’t at the level they want to be and they practice it. Anyone can be an artist, and anyone can be a good artist, if they put in the effort to try. Even you.
Absolutely untrue If you don’t have the spark your ceiling is quite low
I have it for other arenas so I’m not making excuses, I know there are people that will never match me on those arts because they don’t have it. People are different and that’s okay but let’s not pretend everyone can do everything because that’s not really true.
If you have the ability to hold a pencil you can do art. I’m not saying everyone can do everything but art is a thing ask humans are capable of making and should be encouraged to do so with their own hands. Or feet or mouths or whatever.
I feel like some promises were broken 😂
I feel like some promises were broken 😂
You’re absolutely right!
Art is beautiful not because economic value has been captured and skewered into aesthetics. It is a part of being human.
Yea, I agree. It is like the anti-ai art luddites don’t understand this… The people making the promps are still making art, just by the nature of it being humans making human decisions. Skill isn’t a gate to art in the same way anymore, despite what the gatekeepers want everyone to believe.
Okay, I’m willing to accept that we generally shouldn’t decide that our personal lines in the sand can serve as meaningful differentiators between art and not-art. By the same token, don’t expect me to be particularly impressed by a (mostly) photorealistic composition just because you spent 30 minutes fine-tuning your prompt. If I’m not appreciating your skill and the time you committed to your vision, the bar for the impact you need to make is that much higher. For me, most AI art falls flat on that front as well.
Maybe someone will be the breakthrough artist that shows the rest of us luddites what a genuinely beautiful interplay between drafting a prompt and massaging an engine will look like, but (1) even that person is something other than a painter or a photographer, and (2) I don’t think we’re there yet and may never be.
That is at least reasonable. I really don’t expect you to be impressed by anybody’s efforts in AI prompting. Calling it not-art is subjectively wrong, but not being impressed is right in most cases.
art - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
Not-art is subjectively right. AI “art” is made by taking imagery and reassembling it according to an algorithm. There’s no thought, no imagination, no anything creative behind it. Can it be aesthetically pleasing? Sure, like a sunset can be. But neither are art because there’s no intention behind it.
Most art, hell, most human achievements, are generally just combining things in no way that people thought of before.
Yes, but with intent.
The one thing even the most simple ui for promoting requires is some modicum of intent
Where is this definition from? Somewhere official, or your own personal definition?
