(Thread IKs:
OwlFancier)
|
Dabir posted:That wasn't AI, talented people put a lot of actual work into it. But it was really ghoulish and everyone who didn't have terminal fandom brain hated it at the time. The closest analogy to this is James Earl Jones, who has sold his voice likeness to LucasArts so they can make a Darth Vader voice forever going forward. Edit: The number 186 relates to relationships and money according to the field of Angel Numbers. Or as it's also known, boloxology. The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jan 27, 2024 |
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Good! Were you insulting the way I look?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I've taken photographs that I like a lot and am quite attached to, and I don't really see what separates them from something a machine can do. A machine did do the vast majority of the work. All I did was go to the place and press the button. That's like saying a carpenter shouldn't be proud of their work because the saw and hammer did most of the work or that a CAD designer can't be proud of their designs because a machine cut out the pieces. No, you didn't employ as much raw effort as a painter creating the same shot, but you decided where to go, what to photograph, how to frame it, considered the lighting, etc. Perhaps you don't consider it to be worth much, but a good photograph is still a craft and a skill, hence why people still hire wedding photographers and don't just get their mate with an iPhone to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:02
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:That's like saying a carpenter shouldn't be proud of their work because the saw and hammer did most of the work or that a CAD designer can't be proud of their designs because a machine cut out the pieces. No, you didn't employ as much raw effort as a painter creating the same shot, but you decided where to go, what to photograph, how to frame it, considered the lighting, etc. Perhaps you don't consider it to be worth much, but a good photograph is still a craft and a skill, hence why people still hire wedding photographers and don't just get their mate with an iPhone to do it. And all this is true of people using "AI" systems to produce artworks. And lots of people do get their mate with an iphone to do their wedding photographs because actually technology means a lot of people can produce stuff thats eh good enough. Previously these people might not have had anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:04
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:And all this is true of people using "AI" systems to produce artworks. No it isn't, It's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Were you insulting the way I look? I mean it doesn't make sense. So clearly no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:11
|
|
|
tldr all your thoughtfully composed posts but AI art looks like poo poo even if it "looks good" and it has an insane energy cost. we as a society aren't ready for the shockingly fast proliferation of it (deepfakes etc), and our legislators who keep asking how to edit a .pdf certainly aren't either. so i'm really excited to see how much worse everything gets over the next 10 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Were you insulting the way I look? pipe down foot boy
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:That's like saying a carpenter shouldn't be proud of their work because the saw and hammer did most of the work or that a CAD designer can't be proud of their designs because a machine cut out the pieces. No, you didn't employ as much raw effort as a painter creating the same shot, but you decided where to go, what to photograph, how to frame it, considered the lighting, etc. Perhaps you don't consider it to be worth much, but a good photograph is still a craft and a skill, hence why people still hire wedding photographers and don't just get their mate with an iPhone to do it. Well no I usually literally do just use my phone and photograph things I happen to see while I'm out. There is no real intention beyond "I have a phone and that looks nice" I have an extremely rudimentary sense of how to take a passable photograph but my point is that I don't think there is a clear line between me, a human, doing something I like, and a computer doing the same thing. In terms of the end product you could make a computer that can do what I can do and produce things that are at least as good. Much like an AI I usually just take a lot of photos and pick the one that came out best. I think with photography you probably could automate a lot of the process to produce a range of photos that are usually desired. And in fact my phone will do some of those, it has a portrait mode that adjusts the focus onto whatever you point it at rather than trying to get as much of the photo in focus as possible. And then you get into the question of if I use that to take a photo, am I doing it because I have an original desire to create that effect, or am I doing it because that's what the tool I'm using can do. The tool shapes what you can create, if all you have is a hammer then everything you build is going to be nailed together. A lot of historical carpentry is dictated by exactly that, ironwork was expensive so wood based joinery methods were prioritized. Nowadays ironwork is cheap so people rely on it more, because all-wood joinery is more time consuming and difficult, but in turn you can do things with iron fixings that you can't really do with all wood methods. Is one more or less artistic than the other? I have a lot of trouble with the idea that there is some clear dividing line between a human doing something and a machine doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:19
|
|
|
Yes it might be able to duplicate a picture you took but it doesn't know why you took it, and it's replication isn't trying to communicate anything. It is void if all creativity and intent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:No it isn't, It's not even close. A fella can walk up to a field and snap a picture of it and job done, probably gets the point across that its a field. Another photographer might spend hours taking shots from different vantage points and playing with settings on the camera, staging elements within the frame, waiting for the light to be a certain way and so on. This second person will probably end up with a photo that is widely accepted to be better. You can write "a field" into an AI art generation thingy and you'll probably get a passable field. Maybe thats all you want or need. Great. Or a prompt engineer who has spent countless hours perfecting their craft could devote some time to wording a complex, well conceived prompt to produce a series of images that they further curate and condition with additional AI controlnet models, inpainting techniques and so on to get a picture that will probably be widely accepted to be better. Totally different things, not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Yes it might be able to duplicate a picture you took but it doesn't know why you took it, and it's replication isn't trying to communicate anything. The creativity and intent, such as it exists, is not stored in the image file. There is no creativity particle which is transferred from my brain to your brain. If you look at a photograph I took and derive meaning from it, that's your brain making something up. It might coincide with what I thought when I was taking it but it's probably more likely to reflect the environment of your brain than mine, though to an extent those two environments are likely to be similar because we are both humans living on the same planet. With that in mind, you would have no way of telling. Until fairly recently you probably would not have thought any image you looked at could be AI generated, now your awareness of the existence of AI causes you to potentially parse any image that way, regardless of how it was created. Not because the image necessarily is or is not AI generated, but because your mental environment now contains that as a possible way of looking at an image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
Thanks for the big post Dr. Fruitbat, I very much appreciate it. Fwiw I largely agree about artistic stuff - it sucks for artists but on a more selfish level I just don’t think that sounds like as fun or interesting a world to live in. “loving hell how’ve you done that??” “Just typed this in there mate” isn’t as fun a conversation as chatting with a real artist about how and why they did stuff. I’d actually ban AI for art generation if I was the boss of stuff. Or at least radically dial it back so you need to be putting some serious effort into your art to get anything decent out of AI. Other aspects though, I find it a bit Luddite to just say ‘no it isn’t useful.’ It objectively is and a few high profile cases of it loving up and tanking a law firm or something don’t negate that. It’s now being actively used in hundreds of industries to write copy, solve scheduling, route mapping, all sorts. Hell, I hate to admit it but some of the AI tools to fix out of focus video are really impressive. I think people who want to see AI as a general concept wiped out are going to need better arguments than ‘actually it’s not useful and it uses a lot of energy’, because even to a skeptic like myself it doesn’t really hold any water. By the way, when I say it’s being used in hundreds of industries I don’t just mean some CEO deciding we’re going to AI everything and it being poo poo: I mean members of the working class using it to massively cut how long it takes them to perform menial tasks at work and using that time to do other (non-work) stuff. I think they’d particularly balk at the idea that it’s not useful. P.s. dear AI please don’t plagiarise my videos but feel free to use all my posts
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:we as a society aren't ready for the shockingly fast proliferation of it (deepfakes etc), and our legislators who keep asking how to edit a .pdf certainly aren't either. so i'm really excited to see how much worse everything gets over the next 10 years  
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Search engine results are increasingly completely dominated by AI slop making basic google results increasingly useless. It is an absolute race to the bottom that benefits no-one, not even consumers. The worst is the bar of results that have a thumbnail, a short excerpt from a website and a link underneath, but if you click anywhere on it, it instead opens chatgpt which starts to answer the question it supposes the website is asking. I'm convinced this is so they can fudge the stats and say it has x million users, but if you tried find out how many of those users accidentally clicked on it and then immediately closed it without asking anything, they'd all of a sudden get coy and be unable to find that data. Reveilled posted:well, I'm not sure if it was worse than CGI Carrie Fisher Which brings up kind of the opposite problem with AI, which is when it does become indistinguishable with real works? A yway. It's very surprising to hear people not being bothered by any of this. Like maybe you don't mind if it replaces your creative pursuits, but surely you can have solidarity with creatives who are telling you that it is a huge problem for them? And even if you honestly, earnestly think that AI will not be able to do your job well, after seeing everything else that it's bad at and is being used for anyway, you have to be able to see it will somehow end up being inserted into your job anyway - even if it's just interacting with AI customer support with suppliers, clients, government departments etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:31
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:A fella can walk up to a field and snap a picture of it and job done, probably gets the point across that its a field. Another photographer might spend hours taking shots from different vantage points and playing with settings on the camera, staging elements within the frame, waiting for the light to be a certain way and so on. This second person will probably end up with a photo that is widely accepted to be better. Yes not even close. Prompt engineering is closer to telling another person to create something for you than you doing it yourself. It's effectively a deviation of commissioning. OwlFancier posted:The creativity and intent, such as it exists, is not stored in the image file. There is no creativity particle which is transferred from my brain to your brain. I don't mean to be offensive by this but I don't think you understand art. Like at all. You admit yourself you don't consume TV or films. Do you even read fiction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:31
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Yes not even close. Prompt engineering is closer to telling another person to create something for you than you doing it yourself. It's effectively a deviation of commissioning. lol. I don't mean to be offensive by this but I don't think you understand prompt engineering. Like at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:lol. I don't mean to be offensive by this but I don't think you understand prompt engineering. Like at all. I know a lot about Generative AI and prompting. I use the technology on a daily basis in my work. Wait why am I responding to you? How did you get off ignore? Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I don't mean to be offensive by this but I don't think you understand art. Like at all. You admit yourself you don't consume TV or films. Do you even read fiction? The concept I'm describing is just the death of the author. The idea that somebody creates a thing with an intent, but the intent cannot be inextricably contained within the work, the work just exists as is regardless of the author's intent, and then other people can look at the work and derive meaning from it as it exists. If the original author disagrees with their interpretation, well that's an opinion but their interpretation of their own work does not have some necessary primacy over how other people perceive it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The concept I'm describing is just the death of the author. The idea that somebody creates a thing with an intent, but the intent cannot be inextricably contained within the work, the work just exists as is regardless of the author's intent, and then other people can look at the work and derive meaning from it as it exists. If the original author disagrees with their interpretation, well that's an opinion but their interpretation of their own work does not have some necessary primacy over how other people perceive it. I think what you’re missing here is that the author might be dead but they did exist. With AI there is no author. Questions like ‘what were they thinking when they made this’ and ‘what motivated this element of the work’ can’t even be discussed because the answer is ‘nothing’.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I know a lot about Generative AI and prompting. To create art?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Oh, prompt engineering, the groundbreaking practice of crafting prompts that even Shrek would find intriguing. It's like Tesla designing prompts for their self-driving cars—because who wouldn't want their AI to navigate the swamp of conversation with the finesse of Donkey and the wisdom of Shrek? Pure engineering genius, I tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:53
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:I think what you’re missing here is that the author might be dead but they did exist. With AI there is no author. Questions like ‘what were they thinking when they made this’ and ‘what motivated this element of the work’ can’t even be discussed because the answer is ‘nothing’. Sure, but that fits perfectly into the model. Because the entire point of that way of interpreting art is that it doesn't matter what the author was thinking. You certainly can discuss, with authored works, what the author was thinking and attempt to reconstruct their process and that's certainly interesting, but I think a very important takeaway is that this is not necessary to artistically interpret something. It is entirely possible to just look at a painting, not knowing who created it or why, and appraise it. And it is possible to appraise it without invoking the author at all if you want to. So if both of those things are true, then it must also be possible to artistically appraise literally anything regardless of why it was created or what created it. I would probably argue that there are whole branches of theology that amount to doing this for the natural world, and it would probably be interesting to do that with things like photos taken by animals, if you were so inclined. It seems odd to just... not do that with things created by machines, or at least to say it is illegitimate to do so if people want to. Is it not even more interesting that things created with no authorial intent can still elicit feelings in their viewers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
This thread is making me want to vote for Keith
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
In the absence of an author the work of the reader becomes the entirety of the art. Not a million miles away from something like the cut-up method. The 'reader' becomes the person you present the AI art to - curation as art. As with AI art devaluing representative depictions, 'advanced' phone cameras will devalue former markers of authenticity like soft focus, long lenses etc and this will influence popular trends, but the art - the communication - will still be between people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:56
|
|
|
Wachter posted:This thread is making me want to vote for Keith You want Keith's AI Britain??
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:57
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:Other aspects though, I find it a bit Luddite to just say ‘no it isn’t useful.’ It objectively is and a few high profile cases of it loving up and tanking a law firm or something don’t negate that. It’s now being actively used in hundreds of industries to write copy, solve scheduling, route mapping, all sorts. Hell, I hate to admit it but some of the AI tools to fix out of focus video are really impressive. I think people who want to see AI as a general concept wiped out are going to need better arguments than ‘actually it’s not useful and it uses a lot of energy’, because even to a skeptic like myself it doesn’t really hold any water. Interesting use of the word 'Luddite' there, since the Luddites were skilled (often self-employed) workers who resented being replaced by lower-skilled workers producing materially inferior cloth on machinery installed in factories owned by capitalists. AI (to use the inaccurate but common term) seems like another example of almost every technical advance made in the past 400 years. In itself it is a fairly neutral development that could be used to allow us to produce more work in the same time or the same work in less time. Or take over a load of unfulfilling, tedious or difficult drudge admin work. But in the system we actually live and work in, surely it's only going to be used to automate existing human labour, skill and creativity and/or to squeeze more productivity out of the same/fewer humans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:58
|
|
|
josh04 posted:In the absence of an author the work of the reader becomes the entirety of the art. Not a million miles away from something like the cut-up method. The 'reader' becomes the person you present the AI art to - curation as art. As with AI art devaluing representative depictions, 'advanced' phone cameras will devalue former markers of authenticity like soft focus, long lenses etc and this will influence popular trends, but the art - the communication - will still be between people. Yeah exactly, I view art as an act of creation which causes further acts of creation when viewed, because if we accept that it is impossible to directly transfer some element of the mind of the artist into the viewer through the art (which is something I would argue is important because the alternative places the artist as some sort of elevated being who is primarily responsible for allowing the lesser people to experience meaning through gifting them part of their genius) then necessarily the creation and the viewing are both independent acts of creation. If you remove the artist then you are still left with the viewer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:I think people who want to see AI as a general concept wiped out are going to need better arguments than ‘actually it’s not useful and it uses a lot of energy’, because even to a skeptic like myself it doesn’t really hold any water. But the amount of resources required for a chatbot that still gets most things wrong and fundamentally cannot solve that issue (the issue that it doesn't actually understand anything, it's just getting better at pretending it does while exponentially increasing its resource drain) is obscene, moreso in places like California where there's been a perma-drought for years now and you have data centers and Nestle bickering over who has dibs on what little water is left. And frankly I don't care if it's an intuitive argument or not. Climate change isn't an intuitive argument to a lot of people, it's still not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:00
|
|
|
sinky posted:You want Keith's AI Britain?? I welcome the grey goo, but I encourage it to go further -- to create a kind of Tetsuo-like fleshbeast, a fleshbeast that provides a future for working families, as cells in its vast composite body
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:02
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:Other aspects though, I find it a bit Luddite to just say ‘no it isn’t useful.’ It objectively is and a few high profile cases of it loving up and tanking a law firm or something don’t negate that. It’s now being actively used in hundreds of industries to write copy, solve scheduling, route mapping, all sorts. Hell, I hate to admit it but some of the AI tools to fix out of focus video are really impressive. I think people who want to see AI as a general concept wiped out are going to need better arguments than ‘actually it’s not useful and it uses a lot of energy’, because even to a skeptic like myself it doesn’t really hold any water. Agreed, but the distinction here is permission and attribution. If you're feeding in your own work or work that you paid for, keep the data clean and are aware of the algorithmic processes at play then sure, it's super useful! It would even be fine for art if everything you feed in is public domain or work you have permission to use and you tailor the algorithm for whatever it is you're specifically trying to achieve. But that would make it a skilled tool rather than an all-consuming plagiarism bot. The issue with general use models like ChatGPT or OpenAI is that they've scraped the internet for literally everything, without permission, attribution or payment, then programmed them to spit out pretty much anything at all with no regard for specific use cases other than the metadata roughly matching your prompt. AI, such as it refers to large language models, is potentially very useful. The ones referred to as generative AI are just rampant capitalist theft with no precision or particular use, and that these companies are on their hands and knees begging the courts to allow them to just steal everything to keep the grift going is proof positive of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:lol. I don't mean to be offensive by this but I don't think you understand prompt engineering. Like at all. This raises the obvious question - what are your qualifications, mate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Half the trouble with the AI art conversation is that there's a disconnect in how different people think about art. There's nothing I can say, as an artist, to convince some people that 'a computer composited this image that looks like a painting' has less worth than an actual painting, because to them the image is just itself, just shapes and colours that resemble something. If you don't think art has *meaning*, if you don't think the process of creation itself adds something to the final product, then there's no common ground to be had in discussing AI art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you remove the artist then you are still left with the viewer. I don't think it's truly possible to ever remove the artist. The viewer will always make assumptions about the creator and it will effect their viewing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:36
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:This raises the obvious question - what are your qualifications, mate? I've been typing in short, snappy posts to prompt wild, colourful, but ultimately low quality, artless responses for years, mate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:37
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I don't think it's truly possible to ever remove the artist. The viewer will always make assumptions about the creator and it will effect their viewing. Yeah, this. You don’t have to literally be thinking ‘hmm wonder what Vincent van goatse was thinking when he did this stroke’ but art doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it reflects the artist, their feelings and thoughts, the society they live in, the events that are happening in the world around them, etc etc Those blokes painted out of triangles aren’t considered incredible art because people look nice when they’re made from triangles - it’s because they reflected a current in society visually. I think poster above got it right when they said this is a conversation where people are coming from different foundations. I don’t find AI art interesting outside of the fact it’s generated by a computer (and is sometimes funny), because it doesn’t have any of this. It doesn’t say a single thing. E: I’m reading blood meridian at the moment and if a computer wrote this nobody would care enough to put the effort into reading it. Sorry this was going to be a short edit but fundamentally I think it’s about communication: art is abstract communication and I don’t think an LLM has anything to say. E2: seeing as the bus is late: and no, prompt writing isn’t the same. When an artist, or photographer, or editor makes a creative decision they know pretty much the outcome. They can iteratively mess around and get it just right, and that’s a tactile process. Prompt writing is not the same - it might well become a thing of its own with its own merits but for me it’s not the same as the decisions an artist makes because it’s sort of like rolling a dice and seeing what comes out. Very little is left to chance when you’re doing a painting or lighting a shot. Even pollock was pretty bloody deliberate about them paint splatters. Jakabite fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
I've yet to see any AI art that isn't masturbatory tech bro shite from prompt diddlers who think they can create something now that computers will do it for them. They have nothing interesting to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I don't think it's truly possible to ever remove the artist. The viewer will always make assumptions about the creator and it will effect their viewing. Of course, but that is the viewer doing that. Again, theology. A lot of people assume that the natural world had an intentional creator, that doesn't mean that such a thing exists. It just means they are creating the idea of one through their interpretation of things they see. Of course if you do believe that to be the case then literally everything you look at is a work of art. What an incredibly different context you must exist in! I wonder what the world would be like if the majority of people walked around thinking that. It certainly seems to have had a profound effect on people who thought that in the past and wrote a lot of books about the idea. Is the rejection of that idea itself an interesting thing? How does the proliferation of the idea of the creatorless universe affect the way we think in general? Could we find this applying to the concept of art in the future as it becomes harder to tell AI generated stuff apart? As I said before, you now have the idea in your head that any given work you see might be created by an AI, and I assume that if you come to think that it will significantly affect your interpretation of the work. But that's based on your judgement of the text of the work. It would in theory be possible to create a work that's supposed to look like an AI made it and you would probably interpret it that way. Similarly in the future it is likely that these generative models will become harder to tell apart from human created works and you might see something and misattribute it to a human creator. Many viewers will make assumptions about who or what created any given thing they see. But that has nothing directly to do with whether or not things actually have creators. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Jakabite posted:It doesn’t say a single thing. This is fundamentally it yeah. It's nothing. It's like staring at white noise and imagining patterns in it. I mean, that might have value of its own but it's not the same thing as looking at art somebody made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:49
|
|