bedpan posted:

can't spell "fart" without "art"

Tree Reformat posted:

i honestly think a lot of the backlash from artists that isn't about the material conditions caused by the emergence of this tech is a reaction against the idea that anyone opinions about a work other than the creator's matters at all

Frosted Flake posted:

My point is that this is a fairly basic test for replicating art according to conventions of style and it still does not deliver consistently.

Tree Reformat posted:

okay. is this meant to imply they therefore have no value

(the probability engine part, obviously the tech bro part invalidates all this poo poo by itself)

Tree Reformat posted:

We can already make bespoke models trained on specific types of images, and things like ChatGPT and Character.AI both use secondary ai to police the output of the generator AI. It's entirely possible to put those ideas together to create AuthenticEgyptianAI or whatever other style you'd want. You'd probably have to do a lot of specific training on images of each glyph and their exact meaning to get readable writing in there, but I'm not seeing anything that a generative system could never do given enough R&D.

Frosted Flake posted:

As other artists, the viewing public and critics have always existed, and historically most art was made on commission, I don’t see how that could be true. Every Renaissance painter’s livelihood relied on their patrons’ opinion of their work.

Art as a medium for individual self expression is a recent trend and probably still doesn’t encapsulate most art made today.

webcams for christ posted:

I am curious though, what is the net value add to Humanity from text-to-image models and who stands to benefit?

what are the upsides from this tech, in the best scenarios?

webcams for christ posted:

I am curious though, what is the net value add to Humanity from text-to-image models and who stands to benefit?

what are the upsides from this tech, in the best scenarios?

Frosted Flake posted:

I think your stick figure is nice

It's not recognizably Egyptian Art, which is my point, even if it shares a subject.

Tree Reformat posted:

what is the best-case scenario or upsides of remix culture, of cheap image and video editing software allowing the creation of a flood of low-effort memes and youtube poops

because these generative systems are like the logical endpoint of that concept

reignonyourparade posted:

What makes Being Egyptian Art so important. Why should "it is Egyptian Art or not Egyptian Art" matter to anyone but you?

Basically as far as I see it you're making a big argument about the results being INACCURATE and then assuming everyone else should agree that being inaccurate makes it Not Art as a matter of course.

You haven't actually presented anyone with any argument WHY being inaccurate would make it not art though, leaving people who don't already agree with you fairly unconvinced.

Tree Reformat posted:

i honestly think a lot of the backlash from artists that isn't about the material conditions caused by the emergence of this tech is a reaction against the idea that anyone opinions about a work other than the creator's matters at all

mawarannahr posted:

the ideal of art is the least interesting thing about all this and debating it detracts took from the material consequences in a way that benefits Big Capital

mawarannahr posted:

the ideal of art is the least interesting thing about all this and debating it detracts took from the material consequences in a way that benefits Big Capital

Futanari Damacy posted:

There doesn't seem to be much of a debate. A debate would imply some kind of argument being put forth that has merit and can be reasonably defended. To say "well the human brain is basically a computer... and you had to look at a tree to know what it looked like so your eyes and brain basically googled and stole the image..." demonstrates such a profound lack of understanding that it precludes any other premise from being taken seriously

mawarannahr posted:

the ideal of art is the least interesting thing about all this and debating it detracts took from the material consequences in a way that benefits Big Capital

Justin Tyme posted:

I wonder if there's a point in the future where something is developed that creates so much backlash AI research is banned or blacklisted in the same way human cloning is banned

Tree Reformat posted:

although if civilization somehow lasts long enough for the global population to peak, we might see a sudden interest in artificial human generation tech in the upper classes

Justin Tyme posted:

Especially because a lot of it hinges on "well, it doesn't quite look right" as if that's not something that can and likely will change (and perhaps rapidly). AI-cloned voice and TTS always sounded a bit wonky until it didn't with the Elevenlabs bot released a few weeks ago. It is SHOCKINGLY good.

Terror Sweat posted:

Computer, take everyone's posts about how AI isn't art and have them be spoken by a soy wojak. Take all of my posts and have them be said by a Chad.

Then generate a nude a-list Hollywood actress telling me I'm the coolest guy around

Pepe Silvia Browne posted:

can't wait for the ads where my likeness is generated as a soy wojak as i'm walking past a bus station to tell me i'm cringe for not drinking Monster

webcams for christ posted:

I am curious though, what is the net value add to Humanity from text-to-image models and who stands to benefit?

what are the upsides from this tech, in the best scenarios?

mazzi Chart Czar posted:

After being alive, nothing,so, pretty much it's just food, and shelter, what does anything else matter to the human body?


But also -
People get the pictures they want to see for a cheaper price.
For the person who makes pictures, that is horrifying.
For everybody else it's a boon.

Mass Production
People get the clothing they want to wear for a cheaper price.
People get the computer parts they want for a cheaper price
People get the more interesting foods for a cheaper price
For the person who makes that stuff it is horrifying.
For everybody else it's a boon.

Tree Reformat posted:

Lowered barrier to entry to mass production of higher quality images/videos/music/whatever else should be a boon to creativity and satisfaction of higher level needs. The main issue, of course, is capital capture of these production gains to the material detriment of some or most everyone else.

Anything beyond that is a philosophical discussion of what the rest of society owes those who create the works in the first place, such as attribution of the work, attribution for derivative works, and what level of creative control should be reserved for the creator's sole digression and for how long they should be allowed to have that monopoly of control.

RPATDO_LAMD posted:

a lot of people seem to be treating ai generation as just a black box where you put a prompt in and a complete image comes out which you must use wholesale
which is understandable since it's still new and inaccessible and mostly being used by non-artistic computer nerds doing exactly that

but its most impactful use in the future will probably be as just one tool among many sitting in the photoshop tool palette for image & photo editing and digital art
https://files.catbox.moe/vn5jed.mp4
used for redrawing small sections of an image, adding background details you don't care too much about behind the main subject, adding texture or coloration to stuff, etc

porfiria posted:

porfiria posted:

I've been a little surprised at how moderately negative, or at least ambivalent, the reaction to AI Art has been among lay quarters on the Internet, largely, from what I can tell, rooted in the notion that art is an expression of a particular subjective experience and an act of communication between thinking and feeling beings. But, at the end of the day, that doesn't matter--if it's good enough, it will be used, especially, at first, in cases where most people aren't even thinking about the agent behind the content (voice acting or background art in a videogame, for example).

quote:

All that said, I think part of the very genuine and intrinsic pleasure to art (broadly defined) is in the act of communication between people that happens after--the chat in the theater lobby, the the debate on the discussion forum, even the incendiary hot take on Buzzfeed. If AI content is so genuinely stimulating, titilating, fungible, but also so idiosyncratic and myriad, that everyone can just watch their own custom My Little Pony in the 30 Years War But They Also Have Huge Boobs movies in their dank bedrooms Forever, what happens to that critical social component (the end state of this kind of content is clearly some kind of fully immersive and responsive videogame/simulation that consistenly offers up the user's most pleasurable stimulation of course). But maybe humans are so broadly similar that the AI will just be able to churn out The Best Movie You've Ever Seen every couple hours on Twitch and 60% of people will agree, it is the best movie they've ever seen. Until the next one comes out.

Futanari Damacy posted:

"Eventually there will probably be some benefit" is not a convincing sell as to why it should exist in the first place

Zodium posted:

they'll be very accepting at first, and then increasingly less accepting, because generative art converges and human art diverges. it would take a very different kind of process than "ai" to produce output that is "different from this" instead of "like this."

Tree Reformat posted:

Part if it is that the artist reaction against it has been mostly limited to art twitter, and especially digital art twitter. Talk to, say, a painter or sculptor who isn't terminally online, and they probably might not even be aware generative bots are a thing now, much less care about what they're doing.