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!
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.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
That Machine Learning model will learn... from what?
The training data could be the same as it is today, but maybe something novel could be produced by changing the objective function?
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..
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.
Brian Eno, Terry Riley, and John Cage are names that come close to doing what you are describing. The idea of “generative” or “stochastic” or “aleotoric” music has been around for longer than this current AI boom has.
I also found this fascinating bit of music on wiki:
There are possibilities, but there are 99 lazy and uncreative people who just want to press the “make music now” button for every 1 person that wants to spend hours building and training their own models/sequences. (Those 99 have absolutely ruined the lofi/study beats on YouTube…)
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.
The same people saying shit like "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing" are calling training AI on publically available data "stealing"
Check out the youtuber "Neural Viz". Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters. As @tjsauce pointed out, it ultimately comes down to how much you care about what you publish. You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you're aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific. That’s where the artist becomes a designer: someone who not only creates, but curates with intention. Most people aren’t thinking that way.
Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.
He hasn't, though. He's done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion's share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.
I think part of the problem with the "AI is Art, aktuly" discourse is that people who aren't professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist's end goal. This isn't about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking "I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle" instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its "art" should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
OK but now do that without stealing other people's art.
In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people's art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it "feels" more original.
I'd argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
Which does not mean that we can't disapprove of literal copies of other people's work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it's more or less a complexity scale.
Like sampling?
Me: "Oh? Show me some of your original art."
Artist: "ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE!"
Me: "What... what are you doing?"
Artist: "Sorry, my artistic tools aren't working properly. Let me try refining my prompts."
Real :3
"I am a photographer!"
"So you just push a button and steal people's privacy? Not real art!"
Photography involves shot composition and timing. You don’t just point and press a button. That’s why people typically hire photographers for things like weddings - it’s an actual skill, and not something you want to just trust some random who doesn’t know at least stuff like the rule of thirds with. What to include in the frame, not cropping things out awkwardly, dealing with moving people, trying to catch flattering angles…
That’s not even getting into post processing and editing.
Your example would only make sense if someone was going around claiming they were an “artist” because they went around a museum taking full frame pictures of the pictures.
That is exactly why I said it
If you open up your camera app and spin around and take a picture, 99% of the picture will be garbage.
If you boot up a AI art program and type in a random prompt, 99% of that will be garbage.
Photographer have specialize lenses and choices of FOV that affects how the pictures look. Ai artists have specialized weight and loras that affect how the picture will look.
Photographer don't just take pictures at random. They set and frame the scenes - doing prep work and framing. AI artist can use base pictures instead of random noise to bias the outcome (image to image).
With live subjects, photographer can either give no guidance, or direct the subjects (think "look at the camera and say cheese", only more nuanced). With AI art, there is a whole subfield of prompt engineering l which is akin to this.
After a photographer take pictures, they do minor touch ups and photoshoping to clean up parts that didn't come out right. So too with AI artists.
And with both, you can get 100s if not 1000s of pictures of a subject. The photographer and the AI artist true test is being able to pick from those thousands the one or two good shots.
Yes there is a bunch of legal and copyright problems with AI art. When the camera was first invented, people argued that you couldn't take pictures of crowds without getting everyone's concent, nor could you take picture of other people's property with out breaking the law. That the legal realities around photography weren't settled didn't mean those taking picture back then weren't artists, and it doesn't mean that people doing AI art today aren't artists. AI generators are like camera in that you get out better results depending on how much work you put it.
"ai bad, updoots to the left"
I think this is really rivaling AI generated images for lack of substance
People who unironically call themselves "AI Artists" are easy targets.
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.
I like the tech and I want it implemented in an ethical way by someone who cares. I got into technology because I love it, I want to see humanity reach ever greater feats of knowledge and have the benefits accessible to as many people as possible. I think LLMs and image generation have enormous potential and it'd be a shame to not it see so much of it fulfilled in my lifetime.
That said, god, I hate the absolutely insane arguments used by AI fans. Look at this comment section. It's just the worst, most nonsensical comparisons, over and over again. Use the fill tool in paint but don't like it when someone compares a fill algorithm with massive art theft by corporations enriching billionaires? Hypocrite. Use anything you've ever seen as reference but don't think software and human beings are comparable? Hypocrite. Take pictures with a camera? Believe it or not, hypocrite.
Can't we agree that Sam Altman and his friends don't have our best interests in mind? That what has been done to artists, authors, journalists, and all sorts of creators, is immoral and shouldn't be ignored? Shit, they're the only reason the tech is even possible! We would not enjoy such powerful image generation if not for the decades of material they've provided humanity and AI companies have taken without permission.
Why are you so cruel to those who made it all possible? To frame the shoulders you stand upon, those of creators whose work was stolen and whose livelihoods are at risk, as of Luddites and elitists, then claim their protests should be ignored, is beyond disrespectful.
Angry and scared people often lash out, and nobody likes being on the receiving end of that, I get it. I would also like it if we could talk this out calmly... But they're the ones being kicked down. I think a bit of anger is to be expected, it's understandable. What it isn't, is an excuse to keep trampling over humanity's creative workers because someone was mean to you.
This is as lazy of content.
