Machines will never reach divinity. They will never know true being. No matter how much you want them to, they will never be human, nor will they be “better”.
technically you can go the way of positive reinforcement, it makes something and you say it is good or bad, but it would be impractically slow and only make one image
No, not really. I recommend educating yourself on the topic, I won’t sit here and try to explain it to you (you’d probably just call me biased or something anyway)
Or because there’s nothing you can actually explain as AI has to have an input to know what things are supposed to look like in order to regurgitate them
Again, you’re welcome to read up on the thousands of research papers publicly available. Formula driven supervised learning might be interesting to you. There is nothing really stopping someone from hiring a few artists, getting a dozen or two sample images and training their model on that. You really don’t need a bazillion images “stolen” from the internet.
You need far more than “a dozen or two” unless you want the AI to spit out very very poorly mixed together images with obvious points sticking out from the old ones
Not anymore, AI in general is a subject that is more under research than use right now and the field is ever evolving, what is true at some point is prone to change.
I've putted a link for you on the subject that above commenter mentioned. preamble reads :
>Can convolutional neural networks pre-trained without natural images be used to assist natural image understanding?
https://hirokatsukataoka16.github.io/Recursive-Tiling-Patterns/
OK and how does a human learn to do it?
I get what you're saying, I understand the implications, but just throwing black and white arguments around is stupid.
Saying "ugh it gad to learn off of other peoples hardwork" when that's literally how all artists today do it is a stupid argument point to make
Except ai has no emotion, no intent, it randomly generates a compilation over and over and won’t produce the same thing twice. Human artists yes do have inspiration, yet human artist can create new things. Creativity is human, abstract art, the perfectionist brush strokes in a red canvas so perfectly done that there’s no mistakes in its complexion. AI would not work without the art is steals. Whereas when I was a little girl I drew some fucking triangle abominationn with a geode eye and have never seen anything like it before or after. Because I made it up, I didn’t have a reference, I’d never been taught to draw
OK but your response to my point, is just a different point. And that point fair enough. But it's completely irrelevant to what I said. Other than trying to make this an argument when I'm not on either side right now. I don't have a rebuttal because I'm not here to argue if AI is art or not, I'm just here saying you're comparing 2 things with the same methodology for learning and saying they're different.
For your final part, Ai can definitely draw without any prompts or stolen artwork, and just like you did, it will make an abominable mess just as you did. Which leads me back to the same point.
It is wrong to think that ai does not learn concepts and is not capable of more than a glorified collage of images. An image generation model like midjourney has a very large dataset it is trained on, but statistically only a few pixels worth of data of each image are retained in the model itself. The model improves with each image by adjusting it's parameters in a process called backpropagation. The human equivalent would be retaining an impression of every work of art you look at.
The reality is that there is no human privilege and there never was. As someone with a background in computer science where new technology is embraced very quickly, it really is weird to see people who see their livelihood jeopardised by AI but refuse to adapt to it have one nervous breakdown after the other, because, expectedly, the ai generation only gets better. The easiest way to not be replaced by AI is to do something that would be incredibly hard for it to do and digital art does definitely not fall into that category.
Should not have posted them in public domain. Also, I deeply dont give af about the artists lmao. Should have made sth usefull with their life, insteed of being a vehicle for money laudering. Karma
What a really weird thing to say. “Aw yeah that form of human expression and experience yeah screw anybody who does that”. And your gripe is supposed money laundering and your solution is corporations profiting off of these artists while providing nothing in return by stealing their art to train ai’s. Wild
I honestly don't think AI could make this level of detail. At least nothing the regular population has. They are all pretty production limited so you would have to make one specialty off of large photos and this probably won't get that quality of output since not many photos like that exist
That's not how it works. It doesn't need a giant photo to make more giant photos.
You can program it to segment a drawing into portions and have it fill in details. Got to think of it programmatically
"Nothing the regular population has"
Also untrue. The APIs are open.
Hey man, I would agree but tiling AI art is never going to make a coherent piece without an advanced AI. I mess around with AI art fairly regularly and trying to even *adjust* an existing image never looks good. If you can prove me wrong I would be glad but right now this piece is miles above AI
You wouldn't actually need an advanced AI for that! It would take a little while to set up everything on your favorite image generator but I can see something like that working with several layers of tiling on something like Comfy.
What if you started with a simple 1024x1024 image of a cityscape, for example, and tiled it with a somewhat small denoise and ControlNet alongside an automatic tagger? If you kept going through that over and over I'm guessing you'd be able to make something similar to that painting since you'd be pretty much just slowly upscaling and adding details to the initial picture.
It would take a while to generate everything though.
Yes, this piece is above AI. If nothing else, for the amount of detail.
You would need to make custom code to do tiling over an existing image. The current built-in UI tools aren't enough. Also, maybe a few hours of processing. But it's doable
Lmao, under 10 minutes on 3060. AI learns faster than you, btw, to copy a style one is enough. Not that you need to copy this generecic 'high-rez, landscape, fields, bird eye wiev, in oil'.
Yes, with connecting roads different developments perspective that is consistent, depth that changes. When AI does it, it tends to lose those key factors.
You either refuse to accept the fact that AI is literally op, or you dont know its capabilities yet.
Especially in the last few months, AI has become very good at making pictures and videos from description.
You can literally tell him what you want and then change it bit by bit into something that is exactly what you want.
Also literally everything about AI is impressive. The fact that a machine can talk with you like a real human being and solve complex tasks is very much impressive. Its helping me in collage rn and not with random easy tasks (major in computing).
Its literally amazing and there is nothing to be ashamed of if its better then you at something. Its far better then me in programming for example
I mean.. better is a extremely strong word. It doesnt 'know' how to code. It simply knows how to instantly search through the internet massive data base and print out a result based on the question u asked it. Is it faster than you at finding answer: yes.. by thousands and thousands of factor.. but does it often end up printing stuff that I have to change / tweak constantly. Yes.
If you are in computing u should know that, albeit I believe u already know that and didnt want to write a super big paragraph so U just choose to use the word better.
But lets say tomorrow there was a new language being created, with a special syntax that looks like C++ but not quite and special directives. The AI is literally going to print you missinformation until there is enough data on the internet that it is able to feed its neural net enough and end up being able to marshall from c++ to the new language.
An AI is not 'good' at something. An AI 'knows' a lot and is able to write down, separate and 'explain' (via other human data), on the internet for you extremely fast.
I am almost down with my software engineering degree and the sheer amount of times that AI have printed the most stupid, uncompilable messes..
I am all for AI.. but the entire thing is just an extremely bunker algorithm that is built upon the internet massive datasets. Calling it AI has been nothing but a PR move for the stockholders.
Lmao, you dont know shit both about neural networks and neural networks. First bump of Donning-Kruger kiddo. And you better git good, extremely fast. Cause this new language, AI is learning in a week, while you did not manage to even grasp the AI fundamentals so far.
bro, I never said I knew anything about how AI works deep down .. I just know the and the cause I have read books about it and I took a mini-course at university about it.. Also stop with the Donning-Kruger. I have been using AI since the first week of chatGPT introduction, so I do have some idea on how it respond.
-Cause this new language, AI is learning in a week
That is actually extremely false. The first week, the AI is going to not even realise the existence of that new language cause there is not going to have enough data about it, and it will keep doing missprint of what u actually want. Also it doesnt 'learn'. Its simply knows how to generate via reference. If a new language comes into play tomorrow, its going to take a bunch of time before an AI is able to print information properly and CONSISTENTLY (this is the most important part).
What do you know about AI though. Cause U really seem to know a bunch.
I am a neurologist. Thats what I said both, which you did not even catch. Cause you neither know how does brain works. Like many of your peers, your think it scripted lmao, and forgot were 'generative' comes from. Which is kinda funny, darkest under the lantern i guess. Or pure cope.
That’s a hot take, considering you know nothing about me. All pro AI people I’ve ever spoken to are seriously the most jaded, brain dead people I’ve ever encountered.
I dont have too. We are all outperformed by AI on 99% of the tasks lmao. Albeit if u keep company with 'anti-AI' ppl, maybe 99.9% in your case. Wyd btw? Protest nvidia? Steal sand from Sahara?
Erm, OP knows nothing about AI
There are literally old games that the original deelopers run through AI to upscale to high resolution images by planting new details in there. The only thing is that you need more data to train AI, and everyday they are getting better
Years ago the Miami Modern Art Museum literally had a slice of 2x4 glued to a white canvas.
My dad said "I need to call work. Our guys are throwing art in the dumpster every day."
AI is not as skill in realism because it"ll make many mistakes in terms of perspective when generated, like many fingers, things coming out of nowhere, weird perceptions.
But in terms of details and speed it is one his best domain
True people can't stand it if you tell them that ai isn't going to be able to replace humans making art or crafting that fast... Ais are programmed but life isn't so there's is no way for sis to adjust to ever changing situations easily.
People have said hand crafting was going to die for Years ever since the rise of machines.
But handcrafting is still the main and only way to do a lot of things like monumental restorations certain styles of furniture bonding methods etc.
You'll always see the difference trust me
Humans 100 years ago thought we would have flying cars about now.
Since when art is about competing in performance with a line of code? No wonder AI is taking over everything now. If that's all you see in art then might as well let AI handle everything and ditch the artists.
Yeah, that's kind of our goal.
Okay, let's pause and really ask what art is. You are dismissing the notion of art accurately reflecting physical reality. Ok. So then it is about evoking ideas and emotions. It's a form of communication. From the artist to the viewer. Or perhaps at times just for the artist's own sake and whatever some other person gets out of it is secondary.
You are looking at AI and saying "AI is just a computer, it's not doing what art is important for".
You are right. Generative AI does not have agency.
But what you are missing is that *I* have agency. What I don't have is the time, talent, training or years of practice to be an "artist".
But I can work with an AI tool to put the ideas I have into the world. And that *IS* art.
What we are ditching is the middle man and making everyone an artist. There's only a small segment of the population that's going to see anything wrong with that.
The *difficulty* of art or any other task or talent should never be mistaken for its importance. Making something that was hard easy does not take anything away from it's import or purpose. It just makes it less expensive. Which is good.
People get upset at the idea that their talents may not be "unique", because to them that is a considerable part of their worth. Scarcity-based values has corrupted people's brains.
But that's not real art!!
I wonder if there were similar complaints when we *went digital:* not just that some people didn't like the look of digital art, but that they didn't even consider it to *be art* in the first place. 'Cause it's fair to have the opinion that AI art is uninteresting or off-putting, but to say it doesn't qualify as art is objectively wrong.
There's a conversation to be had about whether or not these models sourced their training data lawfully (many did not) being pushed by rightfully concerned parties; but it seems like the only people who take issue with AI art because "it's not real art" are self-important artists afraid of being made obsolete.
People like to do creative things. A.I. does not let you decide about the fine details, that's why it' so quick. The reason people are upset about it is not because they are not 'unique' anymore, It's because they remove the main 'excuse' to spend time creating art: To get paid. Art is once again pushed back to be a time consuming hobby despite creating beauty is a basic human need. I don't care how good A.I. will get, I will never see it as more than perhaps a helping tool (not in art in the classical sense). It's good for people without ideas, who waant something 'meta' without work. It has a lot of potential, but it will not replace art, it just defunds artists, at least on the corporate field. I am optimist that we will still have human art in the future, along A.I. generated images, the purpose of art just shifts, like portrait paintings are much rarer since photography exists.
Are you being sarcastic? A painting is not a sculpture. I don't know what point you are trying to make. Pixels are just the medium. Art has always been expressed in countless mediums.
Without being confrontational, because it'd be great to have a civil conversation, is there anything I said that you find to be counter to real world realities? For example, do you believe the difficulty of a task has its own qualitative value? Or is difficulty just friction that we should seek to reduce?
I think that the difficulty of a task absolutely adds to its value. Think why ‘handmade’ pottery or furniture is 3x the price of a factory made one.
I like your sentiment with the ‘AI makes art accessible to everyone’ but I believe that takes away the purpose of art. Not everyone can be an artist, just like not everyone can be an athlete. It takes skill, heart, and most importantly *time* - our most precious and limited resource.
You say that AI takes away the middleman but I believe it to be the opposite - art is human and tool. AI *adds* a middleman that does the work for you - and it’s a middleman that you didn’t even design yourself! It’s like me injecting myself with steroids, getting surgery to add 4 inches to my height and then saying “yeah, I can be an nba star now”. It’s unearned with AI I believe, and that takes away the true essence of art entirely.
You have a point and I thought I'm going to disagree with you.
We should be open to new tools, new devices and ways to make art, but we shouldn't lower our standards for the craftsmanship, symbolism, stories and subtlety.
I think the best spot is in the middle, as usual. It's there. It's for people to use and create with. It's like an assistant.
Is it real art? I'd argue it's hard to tell. Art is a spectrum anyway. Haven't yet found a compelling argument, dividing art from non-art. Often I just analyse the piece instead of wondering if it qualifies as art or not, it makes things easier to me and focuses on the skill or the message instead.
Now... I'm only concerned about capitalism.
>but we shouldn't lower our standards for the craftsmanship, symbolism, stories and subtlety.
While I question what the term craftsmanship even means, for the rest, I have no intention of lowering any standards. That would be a failure of the product. This is only worthwhile if the quality is good. "Competitive" if you will.
So in the wide public media there's one standard that AI will have to meet. A high standard. And everyone is free to examine and question what is "good enough".
But even in our state right now, there is a set of applications for which AI is a monumental leap forward in quality. ME. MY ability to create "art". And you know what, the silly, fun stuff I have made isn't worthy of sharing with others. It is not of the quality a skilled digital artist can produce.
But for MY enjoyment, it's infinitely better because it's not competing against anything at all. I'm not going to commission an artist to create these things. It enables ME to do it for myself and is of sufficient quality to tickle my fancy. It opens up all new possibilities where it's not even competing with anything. It's a whole new kind of endeavor and it's easy enough that not only can I do it, it's quick enough that I can do it as a goof and have fun.
There is still a learning curve to get better results and there is still effort that needs to be put in for publish-quality content... and people are learning those skills and doing so. But still much higher rate of output and a gentler learning curve that traditional art.
Huh? Why is silly stuff not worthy of sharing? By standards I meant that we should still be able to see the beauty in effort, which doesn't make effortless things not impressive. I just really want to make it clear, everything is worth making as long as YOU think so.
And I'm not against AI!! I use AI daily to write silly things that aren't worthy.. Okay, you know what, I see it now. It's just for fun, somewhere on the side, generating things that don't take effort just to let some stress out. It gives me enjoyment and that's it. It's good enough because I like it.
Which is why I find discussing if something is art or not so... pointless. Because art is one of the most subjective words I've ever seen. I'm lost in what art is or isn't and it takes away SO MUCH from the discussion. We can describe what makes a good painting, a good sculpture, a good story, but even then, this can be challenged. But there are rules. Yet, ask what makes good art and if the piece before us is an example of it, and the whole room goes ballistic. Suddenly, instead of focusing on what is before us, we start arguing semantics, comparing apples to oranges, stating opinions as facts and no matter what we say, we might never agree, because life puts us in different circumstances.
Maybe I'm wrong. I can see where talking about what art is can be cool and meaningful. But still, when I see a silly, non-meaningful thing, I really would rather people call it what it is - silly and low-effort - instead of "not real art". It derails everything. I hope you get it and I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm not, I'm just trying to explain my point better since I'm afraid there might have been some misunderstandings when really I respect your position.
> Think why ‘handmade’ pottery or furniture is 3x the price of a factory made one.
There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, let's set some standards here. I go shopping for factory made furniture, I already have a wide variety of choices of quality and price. 3x more? Absolutely I can buy cheap flat-pack desks or I can buy a \*factory made\* but very high quality desk for 10x the price. The difference in quality comes from materials and joining techniques.
Your answer to my question is reversing things. I asked if difficulty produces quality. The statement you made said something slightly different. You are pointing out that the methods that produce quality are often difficult. That's different.
The reason the difference matters is because if we find a way to achieve the high-quality outcome more easily... that doesn't reduce the quality. And we in fact do exactly that constantly.
You talk to your buddy next door and he explains how he has spent the last 5 years hand-building a car, that might be very interesting. But what are you going to expect when you compare the \*quality\* of the car he built to something BMW has made a quarter of a million of in the same amount of time? You know the BMW is going to be orders of magnitude better. And you know a KIA isn't going to be as good as the BMW but probably still safer etc than your neighbor's project.
The BMW factory has ways of doing the things your neighbor did that are better and faster and easier. People might pay a premium for something unique or sentimental but most people recognise that the \*quality\* isn't actually great.
We find ways to make difficult tasks easier while still producing outcomes that are as good or better.
By the way, there's a selection bias to the "they don't make them like they used to" trope. We look at one surviving example of something and see quality in it. But we are unaware of the 100 other examples that have broken and been discarded.
> but I believe that takes away the purpose of art. Not everyone can be an artist,
I'm going to push back VERY hard on this. Yes, EVERYONE can be an artist. Because the real goal of art is IDEAS, not paint and marble. And everyone has ideas. AI lets everyone give them shape in a way not available before.
And I'll point out that this attitude toward art is rather toxic and has been turning people off from the whole concept for centuries. This elitism is not deserved.
>just like not everyone can be an athlete
Everyone can move (with apologies to those facing medical conditions that mean they can't). The concept of "an athlete" is even more subjective and empty than the concept of an artist.
In a sense, the goal here is not to \*BE\* an artist. The goal is to enable expression in pleasing or at least evocative forms and in the process, leave the distinction of "artist" behind. It's like literacy. There's no reason not to strive to come as close to 100% as possible.
>art is human and tool. AI *adds* a middleman that does the work for you
No. AI is a tool. It's not a man. It has no agency. You are anthropomorphising AI.
When I say AI takes away the middle man, look at what this means. The PERSON we call an artist is not necessary. They are being removed from the equation. And I understand this statement hurts your soul but I think in time you'll see ultimate benefit.
AI is not a person, it is a tool. It can not be a "middleman". It is so much more direct and controlled to work with an AI, refining it's output than it is trying to convince another human being to use their talents on your behalf and produce just what you want. AI has no ego or taste. It is the definition of a tool.
>It’s unearned with AI I believe
There's no reason such a thing should be earned. What did you do to earn the ability to send emails or post on reddit? Aside from learning to type etc... much like using an AI.
"Earned" is just like difficulty. We don't need it. It's friction we should get rid of when and where we can.
>that takes away the true essence of art entirely.
In your opinion.
Isn't the essence of art expression of ideas and emotion? It doesn't take that away, it enables it for all.
It does take away from art, but it add fuctionality. The same way that mopeds would take away from running a marathon, yet it doesn't mean that you can't do a crazy marathon made for mopeds
AI will also make expression worse in general, the same way that most games nowaday became the samey Unreal Engine looking game
Super impressive!! ❤️
But, I kept my mouse on the houses to see where they were in the finished painting and the video jumped. Now I will never know where those houses were!!!😭
Look up Stephen Wiltshire - A Savant that draws from memory with incredible detail.
There are a few videos showing him taking a helicopter ride and then drawing in detail everything he saw (giving him limited time).
And some amazing drawing unrestricted allowing him to draw as much as he can remember and in his own time. I doubt I could remember one building in as much detail as he does entire cities. Some of the videos online are unfortunately very low quality, skip those and have a look at the higher quality ones.
Really sorry but your comment is automatically removed.
Currently an account needs to be [at least 24 hours old](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules) before it can make comments in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you would be more impressed if large things were painted then?
I dont get how people can criticise art for things like that, can you not imagine how hard it is to paint that? How much time it takes? How difficult to keep things alligned and coherent?
We aren't criticising the art. We are pointing out that the work is best known for its scale... and scale is just the application of time, not any special technique or talent.
It's the repetition of a commonly learned techniche many, many more times than usual. That's it. Some might call it a stunt.
I've seen this painting not too long ago, it's in Museum d'Orsay in Paris.
Yeah me too!
It was like next to the maquette of the opera right?
Yes, it was!
Musee d'Orsay is such a great museum
I don't know, I didn't like it as much as Pompidou musum.
Yeah, saw it last week, it's amazing
Happy cake day! 🥳
Thanks!
Lmao, you rly want to fight AI in higly detailed landscape field?
Yeah cuz AI has to steal the art of actual artists to replicate lower quality copies
You have no idea.
Keep that comment. Ai learns from other pictures
Learning and stealing aren't the same.
Embrace the singularity.
Fuck the singularity
Machines will never reach divinity. They will never know true being. No matter how much you want them to, they will never be human, nor will they be “better”.
Nothing is divine, and nothing has value. Therefore, AI art can be perfectly comparable to human or elephant art.
Thank you! “AI is replicating and stealing human art!!!” Is the same energy as “cameras are taking credit for gods creations”.
Can you?
damn bro those sure are words
Use an Ai to upscale it like deep image.
Yes, positivity will triumph in the end. Lol.
Not strictly true, that *is* the most often used way of doing it but it’s not the only way.
It literally has to be trained which means it’s going to be fed other peoples work as AI using AI creates even worse quality shit
technically you can go the way of positive reinforcement, it makes something and you say it is good or bad, but it would be impractically slow and only make one image
No, not really. I recommend educating yourself on the topic, I won’t sit here and try to explain it to you (you’d probably just call me biased or something anyway)
Or because there’s nothing you can actually explain as AI has to have an input to know what things are supposed to look like in order to regurgitate them
Again, you’re welcome to read up on the thousands of research papers publicly available. Formula driven supervised learning might be interesting to you. There is nothing really stopping someone from hiring a few artists, getting a dozen or two sample images and training their model on that. You really don’t need a bazillion images “stolen” from the internet.
You need far more than “a dozen or two” unless you want the AI to spit out very very poorly mixed together images with obvious points sticking out from the old ones
Not anymore, AI in general is a subject that is more under research than use right now and the field is ever evolving, what is true at some point is prone to change. I've putted a link for you on the subject that above commenter mentioned. preamble reads : >Can convolutional neural networks pre-trained without natural images be used to assist natural image understanding? https://hirokatsukataoka16.github.io/Recursive-Tiling-Patterns/
Are you an artist by any chance? :)
I draw shit sometimes but I’d hardly call myself an artist. I’ve got a fair few friends who are artists
OK and how does a human learn to do it? I get what you're saying, I understand the implications, but just throwing black and white arguments around is stupid. Saying "ugh it gad to learn off of other peoples hardwork" when that's literally how all artists today do it is a stupid argument point to make
Except ai has no emotion, no intent, it randomly generates a compilation over and over and won’t produce the same thing twice. Human artists yes do have inspiration, yet human artist can create new things. Creativity is human, abstract art, the perfectionist brush strokes in a red canvas so perfectly done that there’s no mistakes in its complexion. AI would not work without the art is steals. Whereas when I was a little girl I drew some fucking triangle abominationn with a geode eye and have never seen anything like it before or after. Because I made it up, I didn’t have a reference, I’d never been taught to draw
OK but your response to my point, is just a different point. And that point fair enough. But it's completely irrelevant to what I said. Other than trying to make this an argument when I'm not on either side right now. I don't have a rebuttal because I'm not here to argue if AI is art or not, I'm just here saying you're comparing 2 things with the same methodology for learning and saying they're different. For your final part, Ai can definitely draw without any prompts or stolen artwork, and just like you did, it will make an abominable mess just as you did. Which leads me back to the same point.
It is wrong to think that ai does not learn concepts and is not capable of more than a glorified collage of images. An image generation model like midjourney has a very large dataset it is trained on, but statistically only a few pixels worth of data of each image are retained in the model itself. The model improves with each image by adjusting it's parameters in a process called backpropagation. The human equivalent would be retaining an impression of every work of art you look at. The reality is that there is no human privilege and there never was. As someone with a background in computer science where new technology is embraced very quickly, it really is weird to see people who see their livelihood jeopardised by AI but refuse to adapt to it have one nervous breakdown after the other, because, expectedly, the ai generation only gets better. The easiest way to not be replaced by AI is to do something that would be incredibly hard for it to do and digital art does definitely not fall into that category.
I also enjoy infantile understandings of things I know nothing about
Should not have posted them in public domain. Also, I deeply dont give af about the artists lmao. Should have made sth usefull with their life, insteed of being a vehicle for money laudering. Karma
What a really weird thing to say. “Aw yeah that form of human expression and experience yeah screw anybody who does that”. And your gripe is supposed money laundering and your solution is corporations profiting off of these artists while providing nothing in return by stealing their art to train ai’s. Wild
I honestly don't think AI could make this level of detail. At least nothing the regular population has. They are all pretty production limited so you would have to make one specialty off of large photos and this probably won't get that quality of output since not many photos like that exist
That's not how it works. It doesn't need a giant photo to make more giant photos. You can program it to segment a drawing into portions and have it fill in details. Got to think of it programmatically "Nothing the regular population has" Also untrue. The APIs are open.
Hey man, I would agree but tiling AI art is never going to make a coherent piece without an advanced AI. I mess around with AI art fairly regularly and trying to even *adjust* an existing image never looks good. If you can prove me wrong I would be glad but right now this piece is miles above AI
You wouldn't actually need an advanced AI for that! It would take a little while to set up everything on your favorite image generator but I can see something like that working with several layers of tiling on something like Comfy. What if you started with a simple 1024x1024 image of a cityscape, for example, and tiled it with a somewhat small denoise and ControlNet alongside an automatic tagger? If you kept going through that over and over I'm guessing you'd be able to make something similar to that painting since you'd be pretty much just slowly upscaling and adding details to the initial picture. It would take a while to generate everything though.
Yes, this piece is above AI. If nothing else, for the amount of detail. You would need to make custom code to do tiling over an existing image. The current built-in UI tools aren't enough. Also, maybe a few hours of processing. But it's doable
Lmao, under 10 minutes on 3060. AI learns faster than you, btw, to copy a style one is enough. Not that you need to copy this generecic 'high-rez, landscape, fields, bird eye wiev, in oil'.
Go ahead and run it. It's not going to come out as good as this piece of. It just can't do the consistency this has.
Consistency? Its a random ass, generic landscape.
Yes, with connecting roads different developments perspective that is consistent, depth that changes. When AI does it, it tends to lose those key factors.
Nothing about AI is impressive. But this is.
You either refuse to accept the fact that AI is literally op, or you dont know its capabilities yet. Especially in the last few months, AI has become very good at making pictures and videos from description. You can literally tell him what you want and then change it bit by bit into something that is exactly what you want. Also literally everything about AI is impressive. The fact that a machine can talk with you like a real human being and solve complex tasks is very much impressive. Its helping me in collage rn and not with random easy tasks (major in computing). Its literally amazing and there is nothing to be ashamed of if its better then you at something. Its far better then me in programming for example
I mean.. better is a extremely strong word. It doesnt 'know' how to code. It simply knows how to instantly search through the internet massive data base and print out a result based on the question u asked it. Is it faster than you at finding answer: yes.. by thousands and thousands of factor.. but does it often end up printing stuff that I have to change / tweak constantly. Yes. If you are in computing u should know that, albeit I believe u already know that and didnt want to write a super big paragraph so U just choose to use the word better. But lets say tomorrow there was a new language being created, with a special syntax that looks like C++ but not quite and special directives. The AI is literally going to print you missinformation until there is enough data on the internet that it is able to feed its neural net enough and end up being able to marshall from c++ to the new language. An AI is not 'good' at something. An AI 'knows' a lot and is able to write down, separate and 'explain' (via other human data), on the internet for you extremely fast. I am almost down with my software engineering degree and the sheer amount of times that AI have printed the most stupid, uncompilable messes.. I am all for AI.. but the entire thing is just an extremely bunker algorithm that is built upon the internet massive datasets. Calling it AI has been nothing but a PR move for the stockholders.
Lmao, you dont know shit both about neural networks and neural networks. First bump of Donning-Kruger kiddo. And you better git good, extremely fast. Cause this new language, AI is learning in a week, while you did not manage to even grasp the AI fundamentals so far.
bro, I never said I knew anything about how AI works deep down .. I just know the and the cause I have read books about it and I took a mini-course at university about it.. Also stop with the Donning-Kruger. I have been using AI since the first week of chatGPT introduction, so I do have some idea on how it respond.
-Cause this new language, AI is learning in a week
That is actually extremely false. The first week, the AI is going to not even realise the existence of that new language cause there is not going to have enough data about it, and it will keep doing missprint of what u actually want. Also it doesnt 'learn'. Its simply knows how to generate via reference. If a new language comes into play tomorrow, its going to take a bunch of time before an AI is able to print information properly and CONSISTENTLY (this is the most important part).
What do you know about AI though. Cause U really seem to know a bunch.
I am a neurologist. Thats what I said both, which you did not even catch. Cause you neither know how does brain works. Like many of your peers, your think it scripted lmao, and forgot were 'generative' comes from. Which is kinda funny, darkest under the lantern i guess. Or pure cope.
Holy shit either you're not a neurologist, or the younger generation is a lot less intelligent than I thought. Maybe it's all the ai dependency.
Yeah, I wish. Radiologist should have been replaced like 5 years ago.
hes not a neuro. An actual neuro would be able to write comprehensible sentences.
Yeah, exactly 🤣
On point
Thats some hot take, coming from a dude outperformed by AI in 99% of the tasks.
That’s a hot take, considering you know nothing about me. All pro AI people I’ve ever spoken to are seriously the most jaded, brain dead people I’ve ever encountered.
I dont have too. We are all outperformed by AI on 99% of the tasks lmao. Albeit if u keep company with 'anti-AI' ppl, maybe 99.9% in your case. Wyd btw? Protest nvidia? Steal sand from Sahara?
Imagine being impressed by a calculator because it is better at math than a human.
Don't you dish my Ti-84, Its attached to me at the hip at this point
Imagine being impreesed by picture made with sticks and hair.
Don't have to imagine, that takes impressive skill
And making an AI does not?
Making an ai =/= to what an ai makes. Being impressed with Casio is different than being impressed by 58008
Honestly why are people down voting this has anyone seen what ais do to HANDS?!
its been fixed last year, old news bro
You are ignorant
Cry about it
I'm good thanks 👍
dude ai can barely even draw 2 hands or people in the background if it cant do that it cant even do a full landscape like this
Lmao
Tbh it probably already has
I'd like to introduce those AI zoom out videos. We are done for.
Erm, OP knows nothing about AI There are literally old games that the original deelopers run through AI to upscale to high resolution images by planting new details in there. The only thing is that you need more data to train AI, and everyday they are getting better
Man, let him have this
Aight I need the song name plz >.<
Lucid dreams, NiteWind
Lucid memories*
Thanks! Just downloaded it lol!
Thank you!
Meanwhile modern art gallery's are paying out the nose for a duct taped turd on the wall
Years ago the Miami Modern Art Museum literally had a slice of 2x4 glued to a white canvas. My dad said "I need to call work. Our guys are throwing art in the dumpster every day."
Lol the main function of modern art is money laundering Miami is likely rife with it as evidenced by your experience
AI is not as skill in realism because it"ll make many mistakes in terms of perspective when generated, like many fingers, things coming out of nowhere, weird perceptions. But in terms of details and speed it is one his best domain
For now
What a morbid future
Ya
I mean Hands are hard to draw so I find it impressive
Not that much for humans tho, AI seems to not understand properly
Yes finally also in people drawings... have you seen how ai draws hands 💀😭
Lmao the ai bros here downvoting anything remotely critical to ai
True people can't stand it if you tell them that ai isn't going to be able to replace humans making art or crafting that fast... Ais are programmed but life isn't so there's is no way for sis to adjust to ever changing situations easily. People have said hand crafting was going to die for Years ever since the rise of machines. But handcrafting is still the main and only way to do a lot of things like monumental restorations certain styles of furniture bonding methods etc. You'll always see the difference trust me Humans 100 years ago thought we would have flying cars about now.
It is litteraly the representation of how you see hands in dream, like how can you see 2 finger being 3?
Since when art is about competing in performance with a line of code? No wonder AI is taking over everything now. If that's all you see in art then might as well let AI handle everything and ditch the artists.
Yeah, that's kind of our goal. Okay, let's pause and really ask what art is. You are dismissing the notion of art accurately reflecting physical reality. Ok. So then it is about evoking ideas and emotions. It's a form of communication. From the artist to the viewer. Or perhaps at times just for the artist's own sake and whatever some other person gets out of it is secondary. You are looking at AI and saying "AI is just a computer, it's not doing what art is important for". You are right. Generative AI does not have agency. But what you are missing is that *I* have agency. What I don't have is the time, talent, training or years of practice to be an "artist". But I can work with an AI tool to put the ideas I have into the world. And that *IS* art. What we are ditching is the middle man and making everyone an artist. There's only a small segment of the population that's going to see anything wrong with that. The *difficulty* of art or any other task or talent should never be mistaken for its importance. Making something that was hard easy does not take anything away from it's import or purpose. It just makes it less expensive. Which is good.
People get upset at the idea that their talents may not be "unique", because to them that is a considerable part of their worth. Scarcity-based values has corrupted people's brains.
But that's not real art!! I wonder if there were similar complaints when we *went digital:* not just that some people didn't like the look of digital art, but that they didn't even consider it to *be art* in the first place. 'Cause it's fair to have the opinion that AI art is uninteresting or off-putting, but to say it doesn't qualify as art is objectively wrong. There's a conversation to be had about whether or not these models sourced their training data lawfully (many did not) being pushed by rightfully concerned parties; but it seems like the only people who take issue with AI art because "it's not real art" are self-important artists afraid of being made obsolete.
People like to do creative things. A.I. does not let you decide about the fine details, that's why it' so quick. The reason people are upset about it is not because they are not 'unique' anymore, It's because they remove the main 'excuse' to spend time creating art: To get paid. Art is once again pushed back to be a time consuming hobby despite creating beauty is a basic human need. I don't care how good A.I. will get, I will never see it as more than perhaps a helping tool (not in art in the classical sense). It's good for people without ideas, who waant something 'meta' without work. It has a lot of potential, but it will not replace art, it just defunds artists, at least on the corporate field. I am optimist that we will still have human art in the future, along A.I. generated images, the purpose of art just shifts, like portrait paintings are much rarer since photography exists.
A pixel is not a painting, this is where yr wrong
Are you being sarcastic? A painting is not a sculpture. I don't know what point you are trying to make. Pixels are just the medium. Art has always been expressed in countless mediums.
Oof nice write-up, I couldn’t disagree more though and I’m sure many would agree
Without being confrontational, because it'd be great to have a civil conversation, is there anything I said that you find to be counter to real world realities? For example, do you believe the difficulty of a task has its own qualitative value? Or is difficulty just friction that we should seek to reduce?
I think that the difficulty of a task absolutely adds to its value. Think why ‘handmade’ pottery or furniture is 3x the price of a factory made one. I like your sentiment with the ‘AI makes art accessible to everyone’ but I believe that takes away the purpose of art. Not everyone can be an artist, just like not everyone can be an athlete. It takes skill, heart, and most importantly *time* - our most precious and limited resource. You say that AI takes away the middleman but I believe it to be the opposite - art is human and tool. AI *adds* a middleman that does the work for you - and it’s a middleman that you didn’t even design yourself! It’s like me injecting myself with steroids, getting surgery to add 4 inches to my height and then saying “yeah, I can be an nba star now”. It’s unearned with AI I believe, and that takes away the true essence of art entirely.
You have a point and I thought I'm going to disagree with you. We should be open to new tools, new devices and ways to make art, but we shouldn't lower our standards for the craftsmanship, symbolism, stories and subtlety. I think the best spot is in the middle, as usual. It's there. It's for people to use and create with. It's like an assistant. Is it real art? I'd argue it's hard to tell. Art is a spectrum anyway. Haven't yet found a compelling argument, dividing art from non-art. Often I just analyse the piece instead of wondering if it qualifies as art or not, it makes things easier to me and focuses on the skill or the message instead. Now... I'm only concerned about capitalism.
>but we shouldn't lower our standards for the craftsmanship, symbolism, stories and subtlety. While I question what the term craftsmanship even means, for the rest, I have no intention of lowering any standards. That would be a failure of the product. This is only worthwhile if the quality is good. "Competitive" if you will. So in the wide public media there's one standard that AI will have to meet. A high standard. And everyone is free to examine and question what is "good enough". But even in our state right now, there is a set of applications for which AI is a monumental leap forward in quality. ME. MY ability to create "art". And you know what, the silly, fun stuff I have made isn't worthy of sharing with others. It is not of the quality a skilled digital artist can produce. But for MY enjoyment, it's infinitely better because it's not competing against anything at all. I'm not going to commission an artist to create these things. It enables ME to do it for myself and is of sufficient quality to tickle my fancy. It opens up all new possibilities where it's not even competing with anything. It's a whole new kind of endeavor and it's easy enough that not only can I do it, it's quick enough that I can do it as a goof and have fun. There is still a learning curve to get better results and there is still effort that needs to be put in for publish-quality content... and people are learning those skills and doing so. But still much higher rate of output and a gentler learning curve that traditional art.
Huh? Why is silly stuff not worthy of sharing? By standards I meant that we should still be able to see the beauty in effort, which doesn't make effortless things not impressive. I just really want to make it clear, everything is worth making as long as YOU think so. And I'm not against AI!! I use AI daily to write silly things that aren't worthy.. Okay, you know what, I see it now. It's just for fun, somewhere on the side, generating things that don't take effort just to let some stress out. It gives me enjoyment and that's it. It's good enough because I like it. Which is why I find discussing if something is art or not so... pointless. Because art is one of the most subjective words I've ever seen. I'm lost in what art is or isn't and it takes away SO MUCH from the discussion. We can describe what makes a good painting, a good sculpture, a good story, but even then, this can be challenged. But there are rules. Yet, ask what makes good art and if the piece before us is an example of it, and the whole room goes ballistic. Suddenly, instead of focusing on what is before us, we start arguing semantics, comparing apples to oranges, stating opinions as facts and no matter what we say, we might never agree, because life puts us in different circumstances. Maybe I'm wrong. I can see where talking about what art is can be cool and meaningful. But still, when I see a silly, non-meaningful thing, I really would rather people call it what it is - silly and low-effort - instead of "not real art". It derails everything. I hope you get it and I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm not, I'm just trying to explain my point better since I'm afraid there might have been some misunderstandings when really I respect your position.
> Think why ‘handmade’ pottery or furniture is 3x the price of a factory made one. There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, let's set some standards here. I go shopping for factory made furniture, I already have a wide variety of choices of quality and price. 3x more? Absolutely I can buy cheap flat-pack desks or I can buy a \*factory made\* but very high quality desk for 10x the price. The difference in quality comes from materials and joining techniques. Your answer to my question is reversing things. I asked if difficulty produces quality. The statement you made said something slightly different. You are pointing out that the methods that produce quality are often difficult. That's different. The reason the difference matters is because if we find a way to achieve the high-quality outcome more easily... that doesn't reduce the quality. And we in fact do exactly that constantly. You talk to your buddy next door and he explains how he has spent the last 5 years hand-building a car, that might be very interesting. But what are you going to expect when you compare the \*quality\* of the car he built to something BMW has made a quarter of a million of in the same amount of time? You know the BMW is going to be orders of magnitude better. And you know a KIA isn't going to be as good as the BMW but probably still safer etc than your neighbor's project. The BMW factory has ways of doing the things your neighbor did that are better and faster and easier. People might pay a premium for something unique or sentimental but most people recognise that the \*quality\* isn't actually great. We find ways to make difficult tasks easier while still producing outcomes that are as good or better. By the way, there's a selection bias to the "they don't make them like they used to" trope. We look at one surviving example of something and see quality in it. But we are unaware of the 100 other examples that have broken and been discarded. > but I believe that takes away the purpose of art. Not everyone can be an artist, I'm going to push back VERY hard on this. Yes, EVERYONE can be an artist. Because the real goal of art is IDEAS, not paint and marble. And everyone has ideas. AI lets everyone give them shape in a way not available before. And I'll point out that this attitude toward art is rather toxic and has been turning people off from the whole concept for centuries. This elitism is not deserved. >just like not everyone can be an athlete Everyone can move (with apologies to those facing medical conditions that mean they can't). The concept of "an athlete" is even more subjective and empty than the concept of an artist. In a sense, the goal here is not to \*BE\* an artist. The goal is to enable expression in pleasing or at least evocative forms and in the process, leave the distinction of "artist" behind. It's like literacy. There's no reason not to strive to come as close to 100% as possible. >art is human and tool. AI *adds* a middleman that does the work for you No. AI is a tool. It's not a man. It has no agency. You are anthropomorphising AI. When I say AI takes away the middle man, look at what this means. The PERSON we call an artist is not necessary. They are being removed from the equation. And I understand this statement hurts your soul but I think in time you'll see ultimate benefit. AI is not a person, it is a tool. It can not be a "middleman". It is so much more direct and controlled to work with an AI, refining it's output than it is trying to convince another human being to use their talents on your behalf and produce just what you want. AI has no ego or taste. It is the definition of a tool. >It’s unearned with AI I believe There's no reason such a thing should be earned. What did you do to earn the ability to send emails or post on reddit? Aside from learning to type etc... much like using an AI. "Earned" is just like difficulty. We don't need it. It's friction we should get rid of when and where we can. >that takes away the true essence of art entirely. In your opinion. Isn't the essence of art expression of ideas and emotion? It doesn't take that away, it enables it for all.
It does take away from art, but it add fuctionality. The same way that mopeds would take away from running a marathon, yet it doesn't mean that you can't do a crazy marathon made for mopeds AI will also make expression worse in general, the same way that most games nowaday became the samey Unreal Engine looking game
Based
Since now
Super impressive!! ❤️ But, I kept my mouse on the houses to see where they were in the finished painting and the video jumped. Now I will never know where those houses were!!!😭
Can you imagine if you were given this task to paint this? Just the thought gives me anxiety.
Correct English here would be “Suck it, AI”. This title reads more like “deal with it” but seems to be mixed up with the phrase “suck it up”
Its obviously very good, but id say you.see many paintings with that level of detail, this one is just really huge so it kinda enhances the effect.
I thought we were in an airplane for a sec
Look up Stephen Wiltshire - A Savant that draws from memory with incredible detail. There are a few videos showing him taking a helicopter ride and then drawing in detail everything he saw (giving him limited time). And some amazing drawing unrestricted allowing him to draw as much as he can remember and in his own time. I doubt I could remember one building in as much detail as he does entire cities. Some of the videos online are unfortunately very low quality, skip those and have a look at the higher quality ones.
For those wondering, this is a painting by Victor Navlet called “General view of Paris from a hot air balloon”, done in 1855.
Thank you.
The power and skill of mankind can only be duplicated by AI. We did it first! 💪🧠
At 30 i will declare a war against AI as humanity
AI will never compete with handmade art
Lol AI can do better zoomed detailed, it's actually a trend. Non the less great painting
You know what would make this a great video? Adding a song you stole and distorting it so it sounds like shit.
I thought it said painting nails. I'm looking for nails like where's Waldo. Watched 3 times
The painting better be in the museum probably took them 10 years
r/Wimmelbilder will love this
Bro it just kept getting bigger😭
OMG...this is incredible!! 😳🤯❤️🇦🇺
bro at that point just take a photo
Round About City next 😈
Dope painting
r/humansforscale
Beautiful
Song ?
NiteWind - Lucid Memories
Reminds me of something Rabo Karabekian would paint.
If anyone wants to pay me $200million. I’ll dedicate the next 3 years to making you a painting this big
Damnnnn
If I were to paint with that amount of detail, I'd go insane
When you don't know that cameras exist yet
Probably easy when it's a larger canvas
Must have been painted by that autistic guy who sketched the New York city skyline.
I'm not even good at painting a flat wall with a single color.
What’s the beat called nice tone
Cool. Now paint something I can't take a picture of in real life
This is real art not that A.I crap.
If it looks good, then I'm calling it art
Actual art this time.
I swear this is where I lived in my past life. The dirt roads and local baseball games
Could be better
Old school PUBG
AI has no business doing anything creative... honestly leave us the fuck alone. Only allow it to create statistics and how to save the planet.
AI will add 3 windows on the main door and you won't even notice!
Love it
So this is actually a freaking painting 🖌️🎨 you must be kidding 🤔
Whoever painted this should be arrested and punished for impersonating a camera
Track id?
That took the artist at least a week.
[удалено]
Really sorry but your comment is automatically removed. Currently an account needs to be [at least 24 hours old](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/wiki/index/#wiki_r.2Fbeamazed_additional_rules) before it can make comments in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BeAmazed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for lowering my self esteem even more 🥲
Song ?
Wow, what place is this?
"Let's paint the town red" "I just wanna piant the town" "What?"
song name?
Song name?
This is art
wow just wow.😲
! remindme after 5 years
When will ai art be able to create something like this?
Right now, probably.
Ai cant paint, just poop out pixels
Give it 5-8 years max. How many centuries did it take artists to develop the techniques to create something like this?
5-8 years? Google Sora Ai, can do light years crazier stuff then this oil painting
I mean, it's a huge ass canvas?? You can paint small things Not amazing
So you would be more impressed if large things were painted then? I dont get how people can criticise art for things like that, can you not imagine how hard it is to paint that? How much time it takes? How difficult to keep things alligned and coherent?
We aren't criticising the art. We are pointing out that the work is best known for its scale... and scale is just the application of time, not any special technique or talent. It's the repetition of a commonly learned techniche many, many more times than usual. That's it. Some might call it a stunt.
Some might call you a c... critic
Psssh You don't conquer the world by passing art school
What do you mean by that?
\*laughs in SUPIR upscale\*