People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
You mean when you strip away people's knee-jerk negative bias to AI art, people really just like art that looks good? Shocking. It's almost as if the push against AI art is futile as, despite people's complaints, it can pretty consistently produce good outputs.
not everything you don't like is knee-jerk reaction...
a lot of people have minds with or without your ability to imagine other perspectivesPeople had the same complaints about photography many years ago. Times change.
People putting boundaries on what is and isn't art has probably existed for as long as art has.
Is it futile because of how easy to use and usually used by creatively bankrupt annoying tech bro, or is it futile because they have multibillion company backing them?
Idk, i can't tell.
I dislike AI art because of the process of its creation, rather than its visual quality. Everyone faking art with AI can fuck right off.
So let me ask you something. Like with the people in this article, if you see an image and it captures your attention, inspires you, makes you go "wow that's stunning & thought provoking!", then after the fact you learn it was made by AI, do all those previous feelings become invalid?
It just seems like you're having to convince yourself that it's bad. Like suddenly deciding a cake tastes bad because you learned the badder was mixed in a pink mixing bowl, despite previously saying how much you liked it. As if your enjoyment of the final product is somehow meaningless compared to how it got there.
people really just like art that looks good?
This is simply false, and completely misses the point of art.
I’ll say it again because I always do. I’ve never seen AI art that I couldn’t tell was AI generated . It’s always wrong. The light source is always wrong, like the lighting is painted on subjects instead of cast onto them. And it lacks imperfections caused by human hand. Maybe it’s the photographer in me, but I’ve never seen believable lighting in AI art
Survivorship bias
You haven't taken the time to train your own stable diffusion model on an artist's work who is good at lighting. Shadow length and skew drawn by a suggested light source is pretty easy for SD models to start getting right, especially if they're working from a gallery of one art style/type of composition. The article is stating what should be obvious to everyone at this point: this existed before the AI boom and you didn't recognize it until the layman had access to the technology and didn't refine the model or prompts to get these things right.
Oh I don’t work with the stuff, it’s just from what I’ve seen. I don’t really find any AI art I’ve seen to be this big impressive thing. I’m more interested in it from a data standpoint. I feel like not actually making your own art feels kind of depressing. Like what’s the point? Unless it’s for commercial use? Like if I feel creative, I’m going to make something.
Like I used to write, and I feel like if I wanted to write, I’d write. I don’t see the point in “writing” a prompt that pulls from other people’s work. Like what would I get out of it?
Yeah, commercial applications for it are great. It Makes life easier, lowers the barrier to entry, and hopefully will result in less work.
But for purely creative and cultural reasons, I just don’t see the point. Like I know nothing is original and we all pull from somewhere, but part of the enjoyment —to me— is the process of learning, of researching, reading other’s work to hone my craft.
And art without that is soulless and not an act of expression that comes from the deep reaches of ourselves.
It’s as empty as somebody buying a race car and a team to manage it, versus someone building their own and knowing every inch of it.
You've never knowingly seen AI art you couldn't tell was AI art.
This whole discussion on wherever AI can create art or not is a bit dull IMO.
To me it is clear, only humans can create art, because art is part of a human expression of an novel (to them) inner process and thought. Not everything humans do is art, much of it is repetitive. Humans can use any tools to create stuff, art or no art, including AI. Humans can suck at the actual creation process, but still produce art.
So if someone enters 3 words into a AI generation model, and chooses an image, or something, they are not producing art, they are shopping. If they spend time tweaking and adapting models and prompts to help them realize what they want to express, then they are doing art.
I agree, it's all about the artist's control of the art. Drawing, writing, programming, etc takes magnitudes more time and effort than asking a GenAI model, and therefore provides much more control.
Without control, the rest of the art is made up of whatever the GenAI extrapolated from the prompt, and that's not interesting.
I am not so sure about control or effort, there is art, made by humans, that let a leaky bucket of paint swing over a canvas. It is simple to do, not much effort involved, without much control, but since it is done in a novel process, it still is art IMO.
Now if someone reads about this, and replicates it once, it might still art be, because it is new to them. But if anyone repeats it over and over, it is no longer art, but practice. Because the novel approach is missing. Generative AI do not produce art by themselves, because they just generate more of the same.
It is not possible to decide wherever it is art or not by just looking at the product. But you can like or dislike it anyway.
Art is also partly in the eye of the beholder, because it might be novel to them, even if it isn't novel to the creator.
I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
All hail the eternal machine!
Great. Now soulless megacorps can profit off of the concept of art even more. Amazing.