|
Cabbages and Kings posted:edit: I don't have much of a horse in the race here and am just curious what viewpoints exist. all right then
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
the Art Knower has spoker
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
Yeah I think you're right cabbages and kings and it'd be hard to argue that it's not art without coming up with some funky definitions for art. I also think it's safe to say that the people selecting the images for the AI to digest and the guys typing in the prompts can both be called artists collaborating on pieces of art, no matter how hard they both suck. I was teasing the guy who brought up duchamp but he is not wrong, all the potentially interesting art questions AI art brings up are at least 100 years old and maybe feel old fashioned to artists but to a lot of people they are gonna be pretty fresh. I even saw some dude getting mad about the fountain on twitter recently which is really cool. The non-art questions about copyright and algorithms replacing workers seem much newer and sicker. There was a story in the news a little bit ago about the refs who do line calls in tennis or w/e getting swapped out for an automated system, but they made a point to first record the voices of the old judges calling "in!" or "out!" in order for the automated judge to use to sound a little more human. The AI art stuff has that same queasy, wrong feeling to it. It's not just replacing people with a machine, it's replacing them with a machine that's constructed out of little stitched together bits of themselves. Sick poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Oh now playing god is wrong? Give me a break!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
I want to flip the question, why is AI art "art" but other outputs from AI algorithms are not? And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. Why is the person providing the prompts an "artist" producing "art" when we wouldn't recognize the same process the same way in a lot of other active applications?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I want to flip the question, why is AI art "art" but other outputs from AI algorithms are not? And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. Why is the person providing the prompts an "artist" producing "art" when we wouldn't recognize the same process the same way in a lot of other active applications? In that application you'd be an engineer 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I want to flip the question, why is AI art "art" but other outputs from AI algorithms are not? And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. Why is the person providing the prompts an "artist" producing "art" when we wouldn't recognize the same process the same way in a lot of other active applications? Because the definition of art is super loving big. The questions should be reversed. "What is not art." Bringing it up for the 4th time in this thread. Duchamp's The Fountain from 1917.  This conversation about what is art is over 100 years old. And every 5 years some body in the art world does something dumb, like tape a banana to wall, and everybody gets all up in arms, (like a mother who just found out their son's rap album said the word 'gently caress' in it) because most people don't want to remember anything, or have a sense of history. Everybody just wants to be a Dadaist, or bitch at Dadaists because they are too narrow in their world view to say anything meaningful. Gumball Gumption posted:And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. All programming isn't art at all. Go ahead and make counters arguments. Let's see how you define words. Since we're going down the line of history, all conversation about "robots taking our jobs," is dumb. Marx even said it was dumb when Luddites were bashing up machines. Nobody is out of work because of robot, (robots actually make more jobs). People are out of work because Rich people want to have a lot of money, and cheap labor force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
this thread's mentally simplistic tone was set by the OPSkyl3lazer posted:There's lot of AI art tools floating around these days. There's also a lot of very angry people who think there's no AI art tools, just AI Art Theft Devices. I don't want to be a party pooper, please keep meeting timetables for your project managers making NFTs or clicker apps or whatever motivates you to both defend and cherish this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
mazzi Chart Czar posted:(robots actually make more jobs) Oh that's a relief
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
the white hand posted:this thread's mentally simplistic tone was set by the OP Your super aggressive posting style works well in the Ukraine thread and I admire it but maybe try chilling out a bit, smoke some weed or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:In that application you'd be an engineer It's not building a bridge
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Comparing Duchamp to what AI can produce is insulting to Duchamp. Also I'll easily define why AI can't produce art. It has no ability to consider composition and that is what makes art into art, that it's been arranged into a certain composition by a human. The Fountain was art because Duchamp put it in a certain context to say things with it. AI has no ability to do those things. Duchamp wrote R. Mutt on the urinal because quote:Mutt comes from Mott Works, the name of a large sanitary equipment manufacturer. But Mott was too close so I altered it to Mutt, after the daily cartoon strip "Mutt and Jeff" which appeared at the time, and with which everyone was familiar. Thus, from the start, there was an interplay of Mutt: a fat little funny man, and Jeff: a tall thin man... I wanted any old name. And I added Richard [French slang for money-bags]. That's not a bad name for a pissotière. Get it? The opposite of poverty. But not even that much, just R. MUTT. If AI did it it's because a lot of things labeled urinal in the database have that. Gumball Gumption has issued a correction as of 04:17 on Oct 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder at my last job I figured out how to look up what I wanted on github and bash various bits together with a hammer until it worked, and got the union to qualify me for the "coder" rate I don't place some quasispiritual import on the fact that my brain did it as opposed to an AI. it's the same poo poo. if I could do a programmer's job without understanding jack poo poo about it so is that AI
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
indigi posted:at my last job I figured out how to look up what I wanted on github and bash various bits together with a hammer until it worked, and got the union to qualify me for the "coder" rate But it's not the same thing. It's not quasispiritual it's that your ceiling is far higher and the technology still has large blocks to get to something like what humans can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:it's that your ceiling is far higher conjecture
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
indigi posted:conjecture Well, some humans, in theory
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I want to flip the question, why is AI art "art" but other outputs from AI algorithms are not? And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. Why is the person providing the prompts an "artist" producing "art" when we wouldn't recognize the same process the same way in a lot of other active applications? not only would someone curating the output from ot her algorithms be art, I can guarantee that possibly tens of thousands of students are making the worst poo poo youve ever seen to fully explore this idea right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Comparing Duchamp to what AI can produce is insulting to Duchamp. The comparison to duchamp isn't a favorable one, it's pointing out that there isn't some new statement or question into the nature of art raised by AI art, it's just stumbling on ideas that were done much better a century ago by a french troll. Yeah you can still really push the boundaries of what people will consider art, what it means if a machine made it or who is the author yada yada yada but if someone made those points better, earlier all you're left with are some boring, glitchy digital paintings. At that point you've saved someone $1000 on hiring an artist but that's about it. Art can be a lot of things, from digital paintings of chicks with huge cans to algorithm generated collages of anime girls with giant tits, the word art doesn't necessarily have mean something is good or important like those examples either, it can be really dumb stuff as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Your super aggressive posting style works well in the Ukraine thread and I admire it but maybe try chilling out a bit, smoke some weed or something Why? it's my art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Photography in some form was invented in 1717. The oldest surviving photograph looks like this: (original on left, retouched colorized version on right thanks wikipedia)  It wasn't until the 1850s that the technology had developed enough for the beginning of mainstream acceptance of photography as art. And while photography has continued to grow and be embraced as an art form, any initial concern about "why paint a painting when you can just take a picture" has been laid to rest, as the strengths of each art form differs from each other. Even hyper-realistic paintings continue to awe, as people are able to understand the challenge they represent in that medium rather be unimpressed because a different medium achieves the same effect easily. these neural networks trained on vast quantities of tagged images are a different kind of camera of sorts, and like photography it will take time before the technology and more importantly the aesthetics matures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Farm Frenzy posted:not only would someone curating the output from ot her algorithms be art, I can guarantee that possibly tens of thousands of students are making the worst poo poo youve ever seen to fully explore this idea right now Yeah right now there's still a lot of human effort involved to produce something that doesn't look horrendous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:46
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Yeah right now there's still a lot of human effort involved to produce something that doesn't look horrendous. That and a lot of folks using this don't have any artistic inclination at all. Someone was raving to me about how awesome the local version of Stable Diffusion was, but everything he posted looked like.... generated ai art. I'm out of credits on the 30 other sites I signed up for so I decided to install it and it can make some pretty convincing stuff, and it can get up to DALL-E 2 and Midjourney level, but it's taking a whole lotta work. Also reminding me I should probably replace my eight year old rig. 4GB of VRAM limits you pretty bad, and I think this is the biggest video card my motherboard can handle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Photography in some form was invented in 1717. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 06:36
|
|
|
WrasslorMonkey posted:That and a lot of folks using this don't have any artistic inclination at all. Someone was raving to me about how awesome the local version of Stable Diffusion was, but everything he posted looked like.... generated ai art. All of the images that didn't look like dog poo poo to me had additional training done by the creator on top of the SD model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:All of the images that didn't look like dog poo poo to me had additional training done by the creator on top of the SD model. I've been at it for hours and hours and I have maybe one or two I like/might use after I touch them up. DALL-E 2 maybe just got lucky with hitting an art style I really like almost out the gate. With Stable Diffusion I've had to be a lot more specific and go through a bunch or artists to find one that leant itself to the style I was shooting for. Almost makes me want to just learn how to paint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
Right now this thing is like Photoshop. A tool that you need to learn how to use, and how to get it to do what you want it to do. At first glance it looks incredible, but you spend a little bit of time with it and the limitations become obvious. After that you have start learning how to work around those limitations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I want to flip the question, why is AI art "art" but other outputs from AI algorithms are not? And with that, if I had an AI who could produce computer code based on some restrictions I gave it no one would call me a coder or think that I'm producing art. Why is the person providing the prompts an "artist" producing "art" when we wouldn't recognize the same process the same way in a lot of other active applications? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9zDSJGwdd4
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 07:12
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Right now this thing is like Photoshop. A tool that you need to learn how to use, and how to get it to do what you want it to do. At first glance it looks incredible, but you spend a little bit of time with it and the limitations become obvious. After that you have start learning how to work around those limitations. honestly the more i use stable diffusion the less limitations it feels like it has, but i'm also using it to edit photographs. the img2img function gets rid of jpeg artifacts incredibly well and it can be used to create super high quality upscales of even the most janky of images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
the white hand posted:this thread's mentally simplistic tone was set by the OP part of the reason some people sound like they're fawning over ai art is because the people arguing against it post like absolute turds, so any positive comments sound so much more starry-eyed in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
the white hand posted:this thread's mentally simplistic tone was set by the OP you're pissing up a rope with this poo poo, man. if you've really got to the point where you need to justify art on a forum as a uniquely human exploration of ourselves, our cognizance and the ocean of shared meaning and mythology between us you've already loving lost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
if you liked (did you?) art well you're gonna LOVE art 2.0 *bunch of dipshits hoot and clap for something that cobbles poo poo together from other peoples work and search engine data*
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
A lot of the art I've made with midjourney kicks rear end and even as someone halfway decent at it I'm glad that people who can't draw or paint can now produce nice art. There must be a lot of people with a good eye for composition or whatnot who can't draw a circle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:A lot of the art I've made with midjourney kicks rear end and even as someone halfway decent at it I'm glad that people who can't draw or paint can now produce nice art. It's the classic gatekeeping mentality of "you aren't a chef you can't tell if you're eating good food or poop"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
What if we trapped someone's immortal soul in a gem or whatever and embedded it in the Dall-E servers? Would it be art then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:What if we trapped someone's immortal soul in a gem or whatever and embedded it in the Dall-E servers? Would it be art then? It would certainly help. I think ideally we'd be able to punish the soul when it produces a result we don't like it because all real art comes from pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
"you're gatekeeping" say the simpletons impressed by NFT ottersbitmap posted:you're pissing up a rope with this poo poo, man. if you've really got to the point where you need to justify art on a forum as a uniquely human exploration of ourselves, our cognizance and the ocean of shared meaning and mythology between us you've already loving lost. up a rope, into my own mouth, idc. my position is the victorious one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
the white hand posted:"you're gatekeeping" say the simpletons impressed by NFT otters "as long as there's piss, I'm happy" - the white hand
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:"as long as there's piss, I'm happy" - the donald
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:"as long as there's piss, I'm happy" - the white hand hell, same
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
if anyone else is messing with training their own models, hit me up to compare notes. This isn't really the thread for it, but there's a ton of unexplored space there and I am sure most of us are sitting on top of some kind of personal cache of photos/drawings/etc that get into the 10000s. Stable Diffusion was trained on 2.3 billion images. I am starting to understand a lot more of what's going on under the hood but convolutional neural network design is, to me, a complex and hard problem that's very detached from anything I've tried to do before. e: if 200,000 of the 217,000 registered forum users each contributed 10,000 personal images to a GoonDiffusion model, it would rival StableDiffusion in size  I am understanding the denoising etc processes that make this stuff tick a lot more readily than the neural net training side. Cabbages and VHS has issued a correction as of 16:58 on Oct 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 16:55
|
|
