|
the white hand posted:it's rough being a fan of something bad. it steals your mind and makes you speak with forced enthusiasm I'm sorry no one has ever been friendly to you before
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Someone drank the Kool aid and their only response to criticism now is "but it's neat actually my response to criticism was: Pepe Silvia Browne posted:Oh yeah for sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:47
|
|
"
|
Pink Mist posted:When they make an AI that can make linework for my sketches and generate lighting based on a sample, I will use it. I have no interest in taking a half-baked image of Jpow as the joker and twiddling with his eyes/fingers until they don’t look uncanny valley anymore. That’s already the worst part of art. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Even after everything that's happened, I can still tell the difference between nice and passive-aggressive
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Even after everything that's happened, I can still tell the difference between nice and passive-aggressive I was genuinely trying to make a suggestion because they said what they wanted to use it for!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
the white hand posted:re-identifying de-identified DALL-Es what the gently caress does this even mean
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
I'm sure it makes very nice table top art for your game that looks pretty much like the stuff from the books but the eyes are wonkier or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'm sure it makes very nice table top art for your game that looks pretty much like the stuff from the books but the eyes are wonkier or something. It does!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:It does! it doesn't really since it has no way of actually producing coherent styles or visual motifs. like there's no way for an AI to create a series of character designs that actually look like they're part of the same product without it looking insanely generic and lovely
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
It’s cool that someone has the idea, even though it isn’t usable. For one thing, that sketch already has better lines than the AI output, which not only looks bad but is also too simplified to be worked into a final piece without redoing all of it anyway. But maybe one day the technology will be there. Honestly if they made an AI fill bucket that detected gaps really well without blurring everything to hell that would already be useful
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:what the gently caress does this even mean I was referring to this Pink Mist posted:When they make an AI that can make linework for my sketches and generate lighting based on a sample, I will use it. I have no interest in taking a half-baked image of Jpow as the joker and twiddling with his eyes/fingers until they don’t look uncanny valley anymore. That’s already the worst part of art. I was sort of agreeing that somebody will end up doing this drudge work, and no one will benefit except maybe some companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
It's nice to be able to give the games just a little more texture with stuff like that. Sometimes it adds details I might not have included if I was just doing a rough sketch and then it will become a part of the game based on the players asking about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:it doesn't really since it has no way of actually producing coherent styles or visual motifs. like there's no way for an AI to create a series of character designs that actually look like they're part of the same product without it looking insanely generic and lovely Yes, I actually talked about this very problem upthread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:you are personifying a completely brainless computer program. the art theft happens in the creation of the training dataset used to create it. actual human beings are the ones responsible for the art theft, not this program that just looks at pixels and thinks "if I see red here then there's a 24% chance that there will be a slightly lighter red next to it" Things can help you steal even if they're not sentient. You're confusing your knowledge of the process with your ability to assess the impact of the outcome. Because you're a coder
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Pink Mist posted:It’s cool that someone has the idea, even though it isn’t usable. For one thing, that sketch already has better lines than the AI output, which not only looks bad but is also too simplified to be worked into a final piece without redoing all of it anyway. But maybe one day the technology will be there. you can make some ok results, but most of what I've seen using AI image colorization just sucks. It's easy enough to train photo colorization, but sketches require pictures from multiple steps of the process which means that it's really hard to steal enough of them for a training set
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:you are personifying a completely brainless computer program. the art theft happens in the creation of the training dataset used to create it. actual human beings are the ones responsible for the art theft, not this program that just looks at pixels and thinks "if I see red here then there's a 24% chance that there will be a slightly lighter red next to it" are you also this precise when talking about companies and governments?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Things can help you steal even if they're not sentient. You're confusing your knowledge of the process with your ability to assess the impact of the outcome. Because you're a coder my immense knowledge of coding which has clouded my brain begins and ends at knowing how to use the python terminal to run programs
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:it doesn't really since it has no way of actually producing coherent styles or visual motifs. like there's no way for an AI to create a series of character designs that actually look like they're part of the same product without it looking insanely generic and lovely You can kind of try this with reference images and seed setting, but yeah this is one of the big weaknesses of the tool and a good reason human artists aren't ever going to be obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
this is the worst discussion on a quickly developing technology ive ever seen
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
SorePotato posted:this is the worst discussion Computer. Pitbull. Circumcized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:Computer. Pitbull. Circumcized. lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
"Computer, generate a take that will get the most amount of people mad at each other without getting them mad at the original take-haver"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
one of the things I like about art is exploring the human experience. but what if that human experience was mediated through a billion fragments of stolen human experience, homogenized through a machine, and then spat back out at me in a process on nonconsensual collaboration that would would certainly be a vibe 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
AI art is a great tool for computer guys to generate uninteresting images and then post them in threads where people don't care about them
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:one of the things I like about art is exploring the human experience. but what if that human experience was mediated through a billion fragments of stolen human experience, homogenized through a machine, and then spat back out at me in a process on nonconsensual collaboration Uh excuse me I think a neural network and the human brain do the same thing because I'm painfully dumb so actually you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:Computer. Pitbull. Circumcized. actually that computer stole that circumcised pitbull from a new jersey animal shelter
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
SorePotato posted:actually that computer stole that circumcised pitbull from a new jersey animal shelter "I said I didn't want you docking his TAIL - TAIL!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
I think where I currently stand is something like this. I know this one is a tryhard post but like I said I find it interesting and have been discussing and reading discussion on it for a few weeks now. I'm going to identify the human artist as a "Promptor." I'll use the term "AI" but I mean generative art tool, not an actual artificial intelligence. Computer "AI" generated images can be artistic, but their value is dependent on human filtering via the person who becomes the artist. That value and artistry wouldn't exist at all without the work of existing human artists to train from. The AI is not creative, which means that artistic value must be identified by the promptor. This is different from a commission, because there is no creativity on the part of the AI as there is with the artist who is commissioned. There is skill and effort involved with doing this filtering, through both prompt generation and image selection, and effort required to build these learning algorithms, but there is no artistry in the programming. Nor is the promptor responsible for creating the work, only for identification. This is similar to photography - the photographer didn't create the sunset, but it took their eye, imagination, and talent to identify it as the subject [prompt], identify the proper framing/exposure/etc to create a good photograph [filtering from produced images], and to perform the actions necessary to capture it [prompt tweaking]. The synthesis of this is that the Promptor is an artist, using the new medium of AI generated images. The difference between a good promptor and bad isn't entirely clear yet, but the floor is much higher than in other mediums - it doesn't take much skill as a promptor to get an ok image compared to a painter, for example. It is also unclear, however, how high the ceiling is. It may be the case that being among the best promptors isn't especially difficult, because the tools make the talent pool very flat. That doesn't mean there is no artistic merit to AI images, simply that it isn't a very deep discipline. I would be surprised if this is the case. So, what are the actionable things necessary to ensure generative art is done responsibly? What are the shortfalls? There's three main categories of problem which related specifically to the medium (rather than Capitalism), from what I've seen argued. 1) There is the problem of plagiarism. When we look at other mediums, there are two main forms of plagiarism - duplication, and impression. A duplication seeks to make a fake Mona Lisa, an impression seeks to fool the viewer into thinking a novel piece is by Van Gogh. AI art suffers from both of these as well. To that end, I think that the developers of these tools should take a few reasonable steps. - All tags on training set material that deal with artist names should be ignored. The AI should not know anything about who created the images, simply what they depict. - Image prompts should be removed entirely, but at the very least it should be against TOS to use existing works as image prompts. - It should be against TOS of these tools to attempt to recreate existing works. - It should be against TOS of these tools to mimic specific artist styles, bypassing the first point. Yes this removes some of the "fun" uses of the tools, but I think that's an easily worthwhile tradeoff from an ethical standpoint. 2) There is the problem of transparency. It shouldn't ever be a question if a work is created by the person directly. It should be common practice to specify if a work is done via AI. Something like "Name of Piece by Skyl3lazer, via Midjourney generation" similar to how you might see "Oil on Canvas" listed. 3) There is the problem of credit. Artists whose work is used in training sets should be compensated. I would advocate an alternate form of IP-based-compensation specific to learning sets. Something like submitting your work to the "AI Learning Set Bureau" and being paid based on the frequency your work is used, while the companies pay the Bureau based on the amount of works in their learning set, and the number of learning generations they do. I'm not familiar enough with the training sets themselves to set any sort of specific price here, but artists should be paid reasonably for their contribution; a portfolio of work used often should give more than fractions of a cent. Additionally, it should be unlawful in the same way as it is for other mediums to attempt to pass of AI images as genuine products of anyone other than yourself, no matter if you claim they're AI made or not. This might already be covered in law honestly, but at the very least existing laws should be checked for loopholes given the novel nature of the medium. Thanks for coming to my ted talk Skyl3lazer has issued a correction as of 18:13 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:Yeah, it's very much A Cool Idea In Theory whose main practical application in this hell we live in is destroying the livelihoods of the people whose creative works are being fed into it as seed data. You can recognize it as neat in concept and still acknowledge that it's completely hosed in practice and is going to be used to devalue, currently, the small-time illustrators for news articles and the like (who are already publishing articles with AI-generated images made to mimic the creative work of people those publications used to pay for that labor), and eventually as much creative labor as can possibly be replaced or destroyed. The AI-generated images don't even always have to be good, they just have to be good enough that you don't have to pay anyone and they'll become the norm in any space where that's the case. Great post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
I agree However This requires legislation and what are the odds of that happening
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Pink Mist posted:I agree I mean, if relying on the successful functioning of the US government was a prerequisite to all discussion in cpam it would be a very short forum
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
I always find the what is art discussion interesting, but never really thought it has any meaning. Like if I could put two images in front of you and you couldn't tell me which was created by an AI, then you can't tell what is and isn't art, so it doesn't really matter. I make music and perform, but at no point have I ever given a poo poo whether or not I'm an 'artist' , I just like doing it. I feel pretty much the exact same way when I make images I like using midjourney. Obviously this technology is going to be used to automate jobs and further exploit and immiserate people, that's what all technology in the hands of capitalists will do. Art and creative expression will never be free of commodification until we have a different system that isn't driven by profit seeking. The main thing is this isn't going away, and it's going to completely flood the internet with billions upon billions of lovely images, as well as thousands of amazing ones. It's going to change how most people who don't care that much about visual art interact with it. So for me, I can recognize how this technology, like all technology, will be misused under this insane and murderous economic system, but I can also recognize how it will put into the hands of millions the ability to do something that they couldn't do before, that will bring them some amount of joy and creative feeling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:I always find the what is art discussion interesting, but never really thought it has any meaning. Like if I could put two images in front of you and you couldn't tell me which was created by an AI, then you can't tell what is and isn't art, so it doesn't really matter. I think equating anything AI produces as "art" really undersells how the human brain works or oversells what these machines are doing. I think it can produce components you can turn into art. I think it gets really loving close. But the actual products produced by the AI are as much art as an AI that autogenerates lines of computer code is art. I'd even argue that the art being produced through AI art is how those images are then curated by a human but the images themselves are not art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
I guess I never felt that I could personally tell the difference between what is and isn't art, so it never mattered at all to me, and so I don't really understand when other people talk about it, what they're actually seeing. Someone in the GBS thread was saying how at the moment, and possibly always, AI art is not capable of putting together scenes that have any narrative depth or coherent 'story' you can pick out of them, and that it's also noticeable in static scenes, because it has no real concept of purpose or narrative, it's just throwing together elements in a big soup and trying to make them aesthetically pleasing. To me, that's a much more interesting discussion that hits upon what a human brain guiding a brush or a mouse with Photoshop can do vs. what an AI tool can do. Also the ai music creation stuff doesn't interest me nearly as much, because I can't imagine the purpose and emotion in music being able to be replicated convincingly by ai generated stuff. But maybe that's because I have a a background in music, and other people have the same issue with ai visual art that I can't see because I don't have a background in it. However that just reinforces to me the subjective nature of it all, and the meaninglessness of trying to separate 'art' from 'not art'. If someone were to put a piece of music in front of me and I thought it was great and couldn't tell it was made by an AI, then I'd want to start using it too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
I like stuff that looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SBalaghi/status/1575641902665170944
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
i just realised what the aesthetic and utterly boring conversation surrounding this poo poo reminds me of: the first wave of nft poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
In a better world, I can see AI images being cool but it’s going to be abused to hell and back. Small artists already have a hard enough time dealing with people stealing their art and selling prints of it and it’s only going to get worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Incredible because that appears to be a digital art piece by a known artist who isn't Iranian and sells nfts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Incredible because that appears to be a digital art piece by a known artist who isn't Iranian and sells nfts. lmao 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 03:15
|
|