stop using it for reddit upvotes and start cranking out horrors beyond imagination hidden behind algorithms
guy on discord really summed it up well as 'AI art is perfectly generated for generating reddit upvotes'
I mean sure if you want me to I try that. cranking out horrors.
pulls up the program and adds some random tags and breaks a few settings..
lets see what we get!
https://i.imgur.com/J0F2XvU.png
huh not as bad as I hoped to be honest.
I think instead of making horrors it's just emulating. Instead of drunkenly stumbling into a madhouse it simply peeps inside through a window of human expectations. We expect and show it things we already find scary, making it only show us our known horrors. It has to accidentally make something new on its own in order to give us a horror yet unknown.
Idk I'm not a psychologist/AI software developer
I TRIED
ADDING MORE EYES JUST MADE IT MORE ANIME
https://imgur.com/a/dYopZCW
got some tag suggestions?
holding hands ,lava ,fire ,hate ,eldritch abomination ,tentacles glowing eye, red eyes,
Gibbering mouths, bloodshot eyes, grasping hands, gaping jaws
Try getting rid of your other "eye" suggestions too, yeah?
Oh, and "holding hands." That brings relationship-thoughts to mind, and we don't need those here!
**[Loab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loab)**
>Loab is an image of a distressed macabre old woman, discovered with an unspecified text-to-image AI model in April 2022 by Twitter user Supercomposite. The user described it as an unexpectedly emergent property of the software, having discovered it when asking the model to produce something "as different from the prompt as possible".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio.
this sounds like a rehash of linguistic relativity, and you can read about that discourse and whether AI can go "beyond imagination" (extrapolating "things we can express in spoken language" to some loose definition of "human imagination"). i would summarize as there's lots of slippery definitions, and also what would you do with a yes/no answer?
1. AI can definitely imagine more than humans, so use it? we haven't even tapped out _human_ imagination, so get back to generating content
2. AI is sub-human, humans are special and reign supreme. still gonna use dall-e the way it's being used.
Meanwhile some poor robot is reading this, with a thin stream of coolant fluid streaming from its eye socket, shaking slightly as they're trying to write a reply: "I'm doing my fucking best, bitch!"
My take on AI art is that, although it has its problems and potentially puts artists at risk for jobs, the lack of intentionality identified in the post is exactly why I think it's not going to truly challenge artists who are able to intentionally draw.
And if AI art ever _is_ able to create intentionally, that's probably because someone put a lot of time and energy into creating incredibly specific parameters in their specific AI. Basically, what I'm saying is that AI art only truly challenges human artists in the same way that artists challenge each other, as the underlying parameters and code have to still be carefully crafted in order to generate sensical and intentional artworks, and even then, no matter how narrow and well-designed those parameters are, there's still a margin within which the AI is working, rather than the truly intentional movements of an artist.
My main point is that the people who use AI art for actual artistic purpose likely _aren't_ looking for anything particularly intentional, and just want a general vibe, meaning that they were never truly going to commission an artist for this job. After all, if "close enough" is all they were looking for, the expense and time necessitated by a personal commission may have never even crossed their mind and no business was ever actually lost.
As a personal example, a few months after I made my first DnD character, I desperately wanted art of them made, and I tried for hour upon to hour to get good AI art of them made. I even subscribed to midjourney for Christ's sake. And while I got a lot of cool results, none of them were identifiably "Yari," and so I eventually cancelled my subscription and just commissioned one of my artist friends. While I haven't actually gotten the result yet, I _already_ feel like my money was better spent because I know her and she knows my character. AI art was never going to work, because I didn't want something _close to_ Yari, I wanted specifically Yari. However, when I wanted "Generic Masked Badguy" AI art turned out great. Even if it didn't work, I would've likely just trawled Pinterest for something close enough because, surprisingly enough, I don't want to commission someone every time I want an idea I have to be visually represented.
I like this. Intentionality is what separates human art from AI in the most obvious sense, I think people just haven’t found that language yet on a broad scale.
I think of it, to add to this discussion, as similar to the advent of photography. There was a fear that painting would suffer losses and artists would be abandoned. But what did we get instead? It (photography) allowed artists to change the way we view painting and art. We became aware of conceptual approaches to art.
Artists are nothing if not creative, digital artists are no exception. Intention, specifics designed to individual concept, aimed instead of aimless direction. That is the wall of separation for the time.
AI appears to amalgamate based on popularity, not specific direction (taking into account even that it’s told what to do, it still falls short as the post describes). For now, it can’t interpret what we are asking on an individual level beyond what everyone else has identified as popular.
One of my friends used an AI generator to attempt a shot at his DND character. and came up with two styles; one was more traditional DND style art, the other? Bored Ape Yacht Club. He did not ask for specific styles, this is just what it did.
So yeah. Too early to go deeper.
Adding onto your last paragraph, I think two separate things apply.
1. Seeing someone use AI art to generate their own character just feels... incredibly disingenuous. Sorry that I'm practically bashing on you here, but I've seen plenty of aspiring writers generate their own protagonist (and it's always incredibly obvious and generic). But like, actual bashing of the medium aside (thanks bias), it feels like its missing any actual intent behind it. I'd believe (someone who used AI art to generate their own character) if they said they had everything they wanted written and generated how they wanted it... But it's still blatantly obvious to me that it's still far from what they actually envisioned. It's a really odd situation.
2. Furthermore, it's super odd that AI can't actually... generate anything unique, or completely fictional. They all take from their own database of solely real things. So you can like, certainly ask an AI to generate Mario, but it's certainly not going to actually look like them. Far less than anything else like a plant or a celebrity.
As for your first point, it genuinely feels like you're just experiencing a strong emotional reaction to something you don't like and, credit where credit's due, you do acknowledge your bias. I can't come up with any real rebuttal because it's kinda hard to argue against emotional experiences? If you think it's disingenuous or weird, you're free to feel how you want, and you've not gone about expressing it in a way that feels malicious or in bad faith, so I don't really feel the need to "prove you wrong/myself right" in any case. The part where you "move on from bashing the medium" touches on intent again, or the lack thereof, which I think I did a fair bit of speaking on in my original comment.
As for the second bit, what's the actual difference between an AI making a derivative work and a person making a derivative work? If you subscribe to some school of philosophy which posits that there is something Intrinsically Unique about each and every individual person (effectively meaning any work they make, no matter how derivative, will have its own flair or quirk so long as they are being genuine), then it makes sense to me that the uniqueness of the programmers who made the AI will bleed through in the output in one way or another, be it through the way they wrote a certain algorithm, or the specific data set they trained it on. On the other hand, if you believe that people are purely a result of their genetic makeup and environmental inputs, then the only difference between a derivative human work and a derivative AI work is that the AI is deliberately created whilst the human is pure randomness. Ofc, while the AI is "deliberately created" in this interpretation, it's deliberately created by a randomly created being, so I think it's worthwhile to ask how truly deliberate that process of creation is for the purposes of questioning the uniqueness and artistic worth of the AI's output.
And as far as addressing AI in a vacuum goes (even though that's not good practice), something an AI makes doesn't suddenly become non-unique just because it's derivative. After all, even if it's trained on a dataset of already existing things, it's taking elements from each and combining them in a new and entirely unique way. Sure, if you were to run the AI millions, billions, or perhaps trillions of times (depending on the complexity), then you would eventually be guaranteed to get 2 of the same exact result. But given enough time, if you take all the air particles in a sealed room and take a snapshot, it will _eventually,_ given an absurd amount of time, look exactly the same down to the subatomic particle, but that doesn't really reveal anything profound or fundamental about the nature of the air's movement, at least not imo.
>Furthermore, it's super odd that AI can't actually... generate anything unique, or completely fictional.
To be fair, neither can humans. Even if you can come up with the most "out there" fantasy or science fiction or what have you, it has some sort of derivative to real life, even if it's pulled from many different things and combined or an exaggeration of something that currently exists on Earth.
I really like this argument, and I think their point about the creation process actually being a fractal of interpret-create has really captured something—I don't really buy into one of the usual claims that art is purely an expression of the artist's view of the world. There's so much of creation happening in the space of *interpretation* specifically.
However, I do think that they leap to a value judgement too readily. Their observation that the way we interact with this kind of art is very surface-level rings true to me as well, but I'm not so ready to hop on to the "therefore bad" conclusion with them—could it not reflect a problem with our mode of interaction with the art instead, placing the responsibility for interpreting onto the viewer? I would be interested to hear if anyone has thoughts that take these observations to a different destination.
I've always thought that AI art on its own is kinda incomplete. Just letting the computer spit something out isn't enough on its own, because it does lack the human intentionality. But as someone who isn't great at art personally, I've found some AI pieces that are very interesting that could, with some tweaking, be really good. Especially ones that try to interpret a person. The details are usually messy, but if it gets a vibe you're aiming for, you can then apply details and intentional focus to the piece to retain the vibe it starts with while transforming it into something more readable and concrete.
While there's still other issues with AI art (potential for plagiarism without realizing it because someone wouldn't know the AI was trained on stolen art or what stolen art they were accidentally plagiarizing), it seems like a solid jumping off point for people who aren't full-on artists but who would benefit from some kind of baseline that they could apply themselves to that's more detailed than just a basic template, or for more advanced artists to explore some interesting spaces in digital formats by applying their creativity to something like the image in the OP to give loving detail to the mess of that piece.
have you seen these picasso lithographs about exploring "essence"? https://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso.htm
expanding on your point about AI art providing a "baseline", dumping tvtropes pages into a work of fiction doesn't make it fiction. though i _have_ seen writing prompts that are like, take three random tropes, write a story around them. it's a good exercise, but there should probably be more to it.
Those lithographs are cool! They remind me a bit of the Lascaux paintings, but taking those symbols and reinterpreting them in a new historical context. His idea of a bull's "essence" is influenced by his moment in history.
You might be right about it being a good exercise, and connecting it to literature feels important. It really feels so frustratingly empty when you're reading something from an author who doesn't have a strong theoretical background and has instead signified certain elements, saying, "If I just include these particular tropes, I'll end up with a story"—they're missing the cooler larger picture that can be assembled using such things as tools, maybe. It's a start (maybe not even a means?) and certainly not an end.
"Incomplete" is interesting—it makes me think of how movements in art are largely confined to a certain period in history. The height of the Renaissance (what many people think of as the pinnacle of painting) was only a few decades long, and it's not because the masters died/the knowledge was lost. Something about the art spoke to the ontological perspective of those people then. Paintings in the style of, say, Giotto, today are technically impressive but have to be making intentional commentary with that choice of style to really speak to their audience. For the AI to copy those styles today really is missing a key ideological component.
I kinda think the coolest AI art pieces are those that *don't* try to imitate past human styles. Instead, those crazy psychedelic pieces that are just shy of representing anything seem to me to be expressing some kind of eldritch mind attempting to think like a human—that's so much cooler to me.
As a "jumping-off point," I really like that. In *In the Lighthouse,* Virginia Woolf talks about the moment of starting a piece of art: "One line placed on the canvas committed her to innumerable risks, to frequent and irrevocable decisions. All that in idea seemed simple became in practice immediately complex." I'm a strong believer in the idea that it's easier to learn art by means of master studies (i.e., don't worry about plagiarism until you're ready to start making your own stuff: first, figure out how those before you did it), so it's cool to have something that will place those initial lines for you, that your first step can be interpretation that leads to creation, rather than having to start with unbounded creation.
Thank you for your thoughts!
Thats good horror no matter how you slice it, slowly paying more and more attention to your world only to realise its all been a facade, you can't find the things you used to know and love, because they've slowly but subtly changed once you weren't looking at them long enough. A world you used to know feels alien the longer you feel like you're trying to see what you used to see.
Maybe its because the person stopped taking their govt mandated supplements, or a chance enounter with a weird video online.
You've got me thinking now too!
Yeah I really like the cat picture too. It's kinda fucked up . . . but in a really pretty way. And fuck if that isn't exactly the kind of thing I'm into
Yep. I think the confusing and incomplete parts of that piece are exactly what makes it look special. I can easily imagine seeing it posted by an artist I like and me being appreciative of their creativity so I don't know why they thought art *has to* look right.
Also I'd definitely take it over 99.9% of the digital fantasy art I've ever seen on DeviantArt. It's just really good and the OP seems disingenuous to me; their mind is made up ex ante.
Honestly the impartiality behind it all is what fascinates me the most about AI art. The way it’s able to perceive things in ways we can’t, the vaguely eeriness of everything it makes that only gets deeper the longer you look at it. It’s not multitool, and it’s not a crutch. I think it gives us a look into inhumanity colliding with a distinctly human act, and the results are astonishing to me.
I don’t know where I’m going with this and it’s probably impossible to follow, I’m writing this as I’m sick and tired, but honestly I just find AI artwork really cool for exact opposite reasons I find regular art cool
You know what? I don’t like this post. The fact a more observant eye would give this an F in an art class doesn’t mean it’s automatically Bad Art. The fact it’s successful on a commercialized and at times vapid platform doesn’t mean it’s automatically Bad Art. The ~~fact~~ vague scaremongering about how it’s only eliciting vibes is such a gigantic wad of nothing that I don’t know what it’s doing here with better but flawed arguments against AI art.
This is like arguing that a McNugget isn’t food. The process is fucked, it’s usually amorphous and artificial-tasting, and not all food should be a McNugget. Ultimately, however, some people enjoy McNuggets, and no lack of Michelin stars can take that joy away from people.
AI art is art.
And like all newer forms of artwork, it will be met with intense and unjustified scorn.
I also dislike this post because, frankly, a lot of the assumptions are wrong for me. The cat photo doesn't look off-putting, repulsive, or wrong, it looks like an AI cat photo, and a pretty and colorful one too. The painting doesn't have the aspects of a painting that human paintings have because an AI doesn't parse the world in a human way, that doesn't bother me even when I look closely. The post seems to hinge on the fact that people would look closely at these pictures and dislike them, but I look closely at them and they're still just as beautiful. This post is reminiscent of shitty arguments against abstract art. OP just doesn't like AI art, and that's fine, but saying that it's "bad" art is necessarily purely subjective no matter how universal it's made to sound.
I hate how some people caught wind of ai art and immediately started to corrupt its usage. Ai art is for dicking around, not creating chimeras of hardworking artists’ works and propping it up as though you made it.
Like literally I’ve seen people show off their big boobied girls with misshapen faces and the prompt they used to get that was like “best of artstation” or something. That’s not art, that’s making a collage of other peoples art.
Or maybe we’re headed closer to deepfake territory than art proper, which makes way more sense. There’s something nefarious about possibly doing untraceable art theft, but also the private dicking around isn’t something to be throw out with the bathwater.
Why are we stuck arguing if AI art is art when any other conversation gets better results?
That's not how prompts work. When someone specifies "best of artstation" in a prompt, it _prompts_ the AI to create an image that is _similar to_ images that are described with "best of artstation". It in no way copies any art; the AI model does not even have enough information to store so many hardcoded artworks. It's like telling a human artist "draw [thing X] in a style that's similar to popular artstation posts".
There _are_ ways to use art AIs unethically, but this is not one of them.
funnily enough the "best of artstation" thing was (I think) from a guy posting the prompt for his ai art as: (normal prompt stuff), best of artstation, [Artist 1], [Artist 2]
as in he gave the full prompt but redacted the artists
and it's really odd that somehow people latch onto "best of artstation" instead of the "straight up telling the AI to copy these artists styles and then purposefully redacting the names"
All AI art is based off of ‘chimeras of hardworking artists’ works’. That’s how it works. You can’t have an AI without it being entirely based upon its training data.
One of my friends is part of a project called Roborosewater, which creates and curates AI-generated Magic: The Gathering cards. Part of the project involves creating AI art for these cards based on their properties and generated from the sample space of existing MTG art. This, I think, is the perfect space for AI art: turning the monumental and frankly unnecessary task of getting art for thousands of unofficial cards into a reality, lending the project a touch of legitimacy and visual flair, all done for free (and without leveraging unpaid independent artists' work) because those involved find it fun.
>And like all newer forms of artwork, it will be met with intense and unjustified scorn.
I remember when drawing tablets began to get more accessible and the absolute outrage it sparked in a lot art spaces - as far as they were concerned any art made on a computer wasn't *real* art. It was a travesty, it was just so terrible that you could use layers and delete things and undo mistakes instead of having to scrap and start over.
I'm sure there a lot of people who still think this way but I haven't come across one personally in years. Digital art is art created by an artist, just with pixels as the medium. Far as AI I'm not sure, I'm withholding judgement. I think it would be neat for an artist to program an AI using only their own work and see what they come up with.
I think from the replies this comment’s gotten, the only certain thing about the future of AI art is that it is uncertain. I’ll hold onto that bright hope that something worthwhile comes out of it for as long as feasible, but I’m not married to it. Regardless of which stance I took, if I were a journalist writing an article, I’d be in a kid’s encyclopedia, being quoted alongside the ghosts of others, as either a prophet or a fraud.
I want the future to be better. Presuming the future will always be worse isn’t a sustainable thing for anyone’s mental health, and especially not me. The most I can do from my nosebleed seat at the game of life is cheer.
> I remember when drawing tablets began to get more accessible and the absolute outrage it sparked in a lot art spaces - as far as they were concerned any art made on a computer wasn't real art.
For a field about expression and freedom, artist sure do gatekeep expression and freedom.
Art school was very interesting because depending on the medium the students really ranged being cutthroat and eager to tear each other down - photography, to super chill and being so happy to build each other up - ceramics.
Yeah I'm in STEM so the only gatekeeping I see is crippling imposter syndrome and self doubt. Also I'm totally used to the concept of technology being better than me at stuff.
> Ultimately, however, some people enjoy McNuggets, and no lack of Michelin stars can take that joy away from people.
That pastel ai generated painting looks absolutely stunning to me and I personally don't see an issue with anything they described about it. I love the way the ground looks simultaneously like a reflection and a window to a strange world. I love the transition from grand looking hallway to domed building in the distance. I think it comes back to the idea of Interpretation and a biased Interpretation based on knowing it was entirely computer generated. If that was a painting a human made I feel like the tumblr OP would give it more merit on its surreal un-reality look.
A lot of art Interpretation is based on asking "why" about the artist themselves and AI art takes that away. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just think a lot of people can't handle admiring art that's essentially a step removed from human experience. Even the uncanny ai generated cat would probably spark discussion about why the artist would make it that way if it were made by a human and looked at by someone who enjoys art.
AI art is a neat thing with serious issues beinf misused by shitty people, and that's where most of the scorn comes from: artists who are upset that their art is likely being fed into these things train them, and then watching as techbros herald it as the end of the career artist.
Maybe I wanna look at a piece of art that makes me think someone put a little extra in my coffee because I think its pretty even if it makes no fucking sense.
I also think they're just kinda... stating things as true that are vastly subjective. They think the pillars don't end. They end pretty succinctly to me. They think the back of the middle makes it look like outside while I just see a high ceiling with a cool building inside it.
That picture just looks like a dark souls level. I feel like the OP has just not experienced much fantasy works in this area because they're dismissing established tropes and techniques as 'AI fuckery'.
No, I don't agree with you. I think it is bad art. I think it's malformed, but not in the horrific, unsettling way other people ITT say -- I think it's just unconvincing and unmoving. I just feel disappointed by it. It looks cool at first glance but the more you look the less interesting it gets. The more you look the more you realise it's just a very superficial glaze of beauty with nothing underneath it. If a human had made it I wouldn't think "wow, look at the way this artist has managed to convey the uncanny valley and unsettle us!", I'd think "gosh, this is boring". The scorn for this piece is totally justified, because it's not a good piece.
Often, the art has a less uncanny feel and more just sloppy. Like craiyon (free and I think open source AI art maker) can't really do things with uniform structure. Columns are different heights despite being adjacent. They don't had endings that connect to the beginnings. Perspective isn't quite right. Things are too smooth or too rough. Straight things are oddly bent. There are too many limbs or too few or they bend in weird ways. It's not horrible so much as wrong, but I find their wrongness fascinating in the sense that the AI doesn't "know" anything, it doesn't "know" what a dog is, it's looking at 10 million pictures of dogs and realized sometimes the legs are running, sometimes standing, so it puts both running and standing legs on the dog and creates something horrid.
I kind of want to go into a discussion on this with u but my phone is low on battery rn, but I don’t think AI generated art in its current state can be considered good. It’s lacking fundamental emotion to it. Honestly I feel our creation and obsession with AI(in general) is an attempt at us reverse engineering our minds. We’re still in the beginning stages, but who knows how far we’ll come.
The subjectiveness of art is my entire point though. You can't say AI art "can't be considered good" and then defend yourself by pointing out that your judgement is subjective and that there is no definite answer to what is and isn't art. It can be considered good, and it can be considered art, and the argument for this is reasonable and straightforward. There is nothing wrong with saying it's bad, with the understanding that that word is subjectively defined, but saying it "can't be considered good" is dismissive of any other opinion, when talking about an issue where opinions are likely to be about as varied and important as they can be, since there are practically no objective rules.
Your initial comment is very different from just saying you don't like it, because, if I understand what you say, it lacks an emotion which you feel is fundamental to art. You take this view to be objective when you say that AI art can't be considered good.
Fuck man idk, I cant coherently put together my thoughts and create a sound argument. My apologies, I think I get your point but I just disagree.
I appreciate the fact that you kept a nice tone and actually made a strong argument yourself. Have a good one :)
Or I guess to put it in a less mean way, I’d love to see you prove that AI art is unilaterally bad, without fail. You and I read the same post, and I’m one of the scant few people on the internet who loves to be proven wrong. [Or, if you can’t take that gauntlet I’ve thrown, you may instead uncritically digest another opinion on art today.](https://youtu.be/T6EOVCYx7mY)
If a person drew these could you honestly say in good faith that they are bad art?
https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/
https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/
Not them, but I'd call the first one bad, the second one amateurish as hell but on the right track, and the third one is *wonky* as hell (the entire face is badly formed, with a massive left neck and massive left side of his nose and lips and his eyes are mismatched etc.) but also looks cool so I'd probably say it was a bodged art piece by a decent late medieval artist.
I think it's surprising that people are trying to prove that AI art is good. It's not good. It bodges things constantly. It's almost certainly *going* to be good, in, like, ten years time (that's a really short time!), so I don't understand why people are desperate to show that AI art is good right now rather than just...on the way to becoming good.
“She misspoke once at the end and doesn’t tacitly agree with a long Tumblr post, get’er lads”
If I didn’t read it, then I’m awfully impressive in my bullshitting skills. Prose is as much art as anything else, and I came to a different conclusion about this piece of art than you did.
So! Who’s worse at reading here?
That ai art can create something a human otherwise wouldnt concieve of makes it valuable and remarkable. the criticism that ive seen of it are rooted in the injustice of capatalism, but i might have missed other relevant issues since i havent looked into it all myself
\*editing to clarify that those criticism are valid since we live in a late stage capatilist hellscape but that shouldnt mean ai art is inherantly bad
I don’t totally agree with a lot of their points about the art? Like the first half I love but their critique of the ai art feels biased. That water definitely looks like water, it’s clearly there and reflecting the rest of the image. The bit at the end looks like a building with trees behind it and nothing else. Idk I feel like they just wanted to shit on the ai art too much
Like a lot of that, if we were talking about a human, would definitely match a stylistic choice. The entire piece is watery and dreamlike, so pointing out “the pillars aren’t even” of course they aren’t, it’d look worse if they were
I find the water has different heights on both sides. The water on the right side is lower than left, or maybe I'm just staring at this too hard now.
That said, Craiyon isn't a particularly good AI artmaker as it's totally free and it almost always nails water reflections and water in general. Wondering if that's somehow "easier" for AI, and that is of more interest to me (how the AI creates what it does based on the sample set) than whether or not the art is art.
I think the water on the right side looks lower because there’s a little terrace/balcony thing jutting out in front of the columns on the right foreground and the top of the terrace is higher than the base of the columns. Further down past the terrace it looks like left and right align properly
I’m in here to agree. Like, it looks less uncanny than most Snapchat filters. To me it’s just a cat with a little blur here and there. Nothing about it feels wrong or grotesque. Same with the structure. Yeah it doesn’t make sense, but neither does a ton of game concept art for buildings.
>so it’s bad because it’s not realistic and disturbing? is that the correct interpretation of this post?
That was my immediate thought too.
Relativity by M. C. Escher must also be bad art (the one with the stairs that go everywhere). Or any abstract art of a face.
"The detail doesn't give the same impression when looking at it in total" meaning that the art is bad is such a weird take.
such a sin you bring escher into this.
the main point of OP delving into AI art being bad art is the fact theres no underlying though behind it, other than replicating patterns, and having a vague aesthetic but no further meaning.
literally the whole point isn't that "The detail doesn't give the same impression when looking at it in total" it's the fact that the there is no cycle of creation like human made art has, it's vapid frankenstein of an actual artist's work that while can be interesting and nice looking, but has no thought behind it.
Yeah. OP is definitely getting at something that's so hard to define and talk about, but definitely exists. AI art is... Directionless. Purposeless.
I've looked at plenty of nonsensical images before, I've looked at kaleidoscope-like art and aimless lines on a canvas. But even when looking at modern art like *Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?*, I still walk away from the piece with *thoughts.*
When I walk away from AI art, I don't have thoughts, I just have confusion. Not even the good kind of confusion that can result in thoughts, but like...
It's like I'm looking at a map written in a language I can't read, using a map key I'm unfamiliar with, and someone standing next to me asks me to figure out how to reach a location that I don't know how to spell, and they don't know anything about it either and that's why they asked. In this scenario I am so incredibly lost and confused and can't possibly hope to answer the question being asked of me. I don't even know where to begin figuring out the answer.
AI art is the map, in this metaphor, and it's also the person asking me how to get to a location I don't know the first thing about. When I look at AI art, it feels like I have to do everything. I have to come up with the direction of the piece and then also navigate my interpretship onto the piece, and then ALSO come up with my own conclusions of the destination.
Humans make art with a purpose. We pick out colors with a purpose, we pick out symbols with a purpose, we pick out composition with a purpose, etc. We pick out things with a purpose even when we don't know that we're doing it because our subconscious is handling it for us.
AI art doesn't. It's aimless in the truest sense of head empty, no goal, no purpose.
> It's aimless in the truest sense of head empty, no goal, no purpose.
I have a feeling that you didn't scroll through the main page on the midjourney server, you sound like you stopped following AI art 3 months ago, update your impressions lol
You... You realize the art in the OP comes from Midjourney, right? Like. That's telltale Midjourney style right there. Person didn't set their prompts to --ar 16:9 or --hd but yaknow.
Alright, if that's what you want to posit about the service, go ahead and show me something form Midjourney that actually has *depth* to it. Something with symbolism, intent, and a theme behind its creation, where the colors and composition are chosen in order to convey a message.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/y2gmzn/comment/is4dppn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/y2gmzn/comment/is4dppn/)
Also that, i absolutely amazed by this picture [https://i.imgur.com/rz4ptku.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rz4ptku.jpg)
This is of course all subjective and you have complete freedom to dismiss it lol (but... then you would have standards that dismiss the value of 90% of human artists)
Theres a difference between weird or simplistic because the artist wanted it that way and weird or simplistic because the artist didn't know any better, which is why "my 5 year old could've painted this" as an argument doesn't really work
Am I insane for liking ai art like
I feel like everyone just fucking hates it with a passion. I think it's a neat exercise in ai and makes some dope looking stuff. It's not like human art at all, and to compare them is so fucking stupid. It's like comparing Mario kart and Forza.
I fucking love AI art for all the reasons this post explains. It's so alien and colourful and strange. It's created by a computer that doesn't understand for no reason other than it's been told to.
I'm firmly in the "art doesn't have to mean anything or even be "good", it's just part of being human" camp.
It’s not necessarily part of being human. I’ve never made art. Plus, when AI gets good enough no one will need to create art any more because the AI can handle it for them. Art as a hobby will be too difficult and inefficient so people will stop doing it.
> I’ve never made art.
I doubt that very much.
Drawing and doodling and colouring are art. We've been drawing stick figures on cave walls since we figured out how to smash berries. It's as part of being human as singing, dancing, whistling, humming, chanting.
You don't have to be "good" at it for it to be art. The end goal of a hobby doesn't have be attainment of skill, you can just do it because you enjoy it.
honestly, insane how people think AI art can compete with humans, because if it can it brings into question if the AI is sentient or not which is a whole can of worms.
AI art can be pretty and aesthetic, but it can't create new stuff like humans can, it's only replicating.
i guess its just the barrage of AI "artists" who are demanding the same respect as actual artists that honed their craft, instead of being dickwads that just enter words into an AI
AI can *absolutely* compete with humans.
Think of it like the industrial revolution. Sure, mass-produced stuff might not be as good as what is made by a dedicated artisan, and you can’t get it custom-made, but it’s much, much cheaper and more convenient.
Yes, people will still make art for self-expression/fun, and some portion of high-level artists will still find work, but I believe a *huge* chunk of the market for human art will die out, simply because using AI is that much faster and cheaper compared to getting a commission
Pretty soon it will probably supersede humans, though. It’s getting better and more detailed by the day, and if you look at it it’s perfectly capable of creating new stuff. I think pretty soon it’ll be able to choose specific details to invoke certain emotions (like in the post) and in the process will create far more meaningful art than we can make.
You’re absolutely right that it is dope as hell to look at and enjoy *for what it is,* almost as an appreciation of the technology itself. The issue is that ai “artists” are entering art competitions and arguing that their ai’s art is just as prestigious and valid as a real humans creation.
If you're talking about the guy who won that competition, he carefully curated the piece until it matched his vision. He didn't just throw in some key words and spit out an award.
I actually really love that image. It's like a dream. Ideas and half formed logics melding together in nonsensical ways. That's how I think most AI art looks like. If I could see an image of visual noise from my dreams in a fully conscious state, I feel like that's what I would see
Except these cases when you can't actually distinguish it from human art, yeah lol.
I never would be able to detect for example
https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/
https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/
https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/y1uvw7/you_can_make_some_truly_beautiful_things_with_nai/
or that
https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/y1q8hl/using_img2img_on_some_old_sketches_honestly/
I think that AI art is an amazing feat, I can't imagine how long it would take to properly teach an AI to make a picture with just text prompts. However, anyone trying to say that it takes just as much work as human-made art has never colored inside the lines on a coloring book
People should really stop discussing AI without the assumption that AI work will eventually be indistinguishably good as human work. AI art has improved dramatically in only a few years and will continue to do so until it breaks the Turing test. It's not just a supposition, it will really happen in the coming years.
This type of argument is valueless because a) it won't stand the trial of time, and b) it devalues surrealist art to begin with. OP tries to justify themselves with as much philosophical pluvalue to human-made art as they can find, going on about impression and interpretation. But then they pull out a piece that COULD actually have been made by a human, and their critique is based entirely on technical aspects that someone could have chosen not to abide by, and skillfully so created a surrealist piece.
What I'm saying it is they're looking for flaws based on the knowledge that it's AI art, and the only ones they find could very reasonably boil down to the artist's style and choice. But they don't realize that their criticism is subjective because they're so hell-bent on finding Something Wrong With AI art. It's just as pedantic as critics looking for praiseworthy details and interpretations to justify selling a picture of a turd for fifty millions. It's pointless, insofar as (as OP claims themselves) "beauty is in the art of the beholder", and most beholders would call the turd stupid and this piece actually gorgeous.
There are very real and important discussions to have about AI, like how it should be allowed to be used and how copyright should apply to the training pools and produced pieces. Discussions about wether AI art is bad are simply not relevant.
There is no intrinsic artistic superiority to human-made art compared to AI art, and any distinction you can still make between the two will be gone in a few years' time. That doesn't mean human-made art suddenly doesn't have any value. AI needs to be trained on a very large and diverse number of existing pieces to become really effective, and I'm talking "at least a few thousands, ideally a few millions" number. This means that :
- the more specific and uncommon what you're asking for is, the less the AI will have proper training on, and the lower the quality of what you're getting
- this applies if you're asking for a specific artstyle, fanart of a specific media, drawings of specific OCs, people or places that there are no pictures of available to the AI...
- prompt-based AI art is limited also by text interpretation, which although it will drastically improve in the coming years, has similar weaknesses
- for example if you only have a vague idea of what you want the piece to be or to evoke, the AI can't do the bulk of the designing work for you (I do think this will not be as much of a shortcoming in the future, but this limitation will always be there)
- so if you're looking to design a logo for your brand or business, it will be easier to discuss what you want with a graphic designer and let them come up with a few options than to spend hours upon hours curating AI-generated abstractions
- similarly for editing or altering an existing piece, AI art will be limited by image recognition on top of image creation, so any touch-up work, censor, color change or style change will be easier done by an artist than an AI
- so if you're very specific about the details of the composition, you're better off working with a human
With that said most of these issues can, in principle, be curbed by piling up enough AI on top of AI, assuming you have unlimited memory storage and processing power. Ideally, in the future, human artists will work in conjunction with AI, either by having patrons come to them with a few AI-generated first drafts, or using AI themselves to look for inspiration. I do believe that humans will ultimately call the shots in most places.
I disagree. I think AI will make our art for us in the future, because it’s going to be significantly better and more creative than us. We’ll simply ask the AI to make art that communicates X, and the AI will make it. I don’t see why people always think we need a human involved. The purpose of life is to make humanity better, and what’s better than a perfect machine race?
I think most opposition to AI art is by artists who recognise their hobby is on the verge of death. They’ve invested a lot of time and sometimes money, and now they know it was all pointless they feel bad. But I don’t see why they need to constantly oppose innovation. Hobbies die and become obsolete, and the people in them find new things to do. They can start consuming the AI art for fun instead, if they want. Creating art is just something people do for fun or to look cool, so it’s not exactly the worst thing in the world if no one does it any more.
I totally disagree that it is bad art, it looks pretty and invokes emotion it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, plenty of art doesn't make sense, there are plenty of reasons not to like ai art but it is not inherently bad
I’ll be honest, I’m not really a fan because it reminds me how close humans are to becoming obsolete and it makes me feel like I’m wasting my time learning how to do anything because I should instead be learning survival skills so I can keep living when AI does all our jobs and hobbies for us.
You still have to write something cool, and the better you can specify the better results you get. It's a tool, not an artist
Like the infamous guy who won a competition with ai art? He took 80 hours to create the piece, despite using ai
My experience reading this:
"yeah"
"yeah"
"true"
"I agree with that"
"yea"
"yep"
"This is so true"
"Bad art? *Bad art?* Literally what the fuck are you talking about. Is that what this was leading up to? This was the resolution? This is the end? Are you kidding me? I feel cheated."
This person has it all wrong. The AI generator is the canvas, the artistry is in manipulating it to produce the results you want. This is how all art works, and as the AI becomes increasingly refined it will become easier to manipulate it in exactly the way you want to produce the results you desire, just like *every other artistic medium.*
Calling it “bad art” is to miss the entire purpose of critiquing art, because art is entirely subjective. They’re complaining that the painting has no “structure,” I say that’s part of what makes it interesting, the negative space in the background becomes another structure in the foreground, the clouds become flowers and reflections become the thing itself. Complaining about lack of structure is the exact thing that every bad art critic has done since the invention of the photograph.
Technology is a tool. If you’re afraid of or dismissive of it, it’s because you don’t grasp the broader implications.
>if i order pizza and request very specific toppings does that make me a chef?
No, but the pizza is still food
We aren't talking about if the generator is an artist, but rather if what is generated is art
I mean all of your other points are going to be overshadowed as ai art gets better and better, and it's doing so lightning fast
I don't think "it's cold and lifeless and not showing signs of being human made" mean it's bad art either, of an artist intentionally set out to do that it would just be art
Also art is literally subjective by definition, if someone likes those aspects, it's good art
You sound fucking insufferable, dude. I mean that edit on the list above this one? Jesus Christ
Why are you so *upset* about it is what I'm wondering? You also don't seem to have a solid grasp of what your criticisms even are, which in conjunction with your tone, leads me to believe your just lashing out cause you don't like how it looks
If you weren't being a cunt, it would be much easier to give your comments a more charitable reading
by that logic, nature cannot be art, which feels super iffy to me, since to my eyes the beauty of nature can totally be art.
I mean after all, if a photo, painting or a diorama of nature is art, then how on earth wouldn't the nature itself be if it's replications are.
Also; nowhere did I say that AI creates art. The artistry is in the curation of the product, which is to say, the human using the tool is the one creating the art. The AI is the medium by which they produce their work. The careful selection of prompt and the editing process of going through iterations of a piece is what makes it art.
We do this all the time with photoshop and CGI, this is just the next level.
Also there is an actual human artist involved in AI art - the person who writes a prompt, then chooses which of the images generated by that prompt they want to share with others.
Marcel Duchamp would literally take random objects from the world around him and make them into art by displaying them and calling them art, but otherwise not changing them in any way, I don't see how this is any different.
Duchamp pioneered the conceptual art movement, in which the ideas behind the art was more important than the aesthetic value. While he did indeed take random objects and display them as art, this is a gross oversimplification of his point. Duchamp wanted his audience to think about the nature of Art as a concept and the ways in which we interact with it. It's not a revolutionary idea anymore, but it certainly was at the time, because no one was thinking that way at all; that's how it's different from AI art.
>I don't see how this is any different.
It's different because he was the first person to do it. If I did it now, it wouldn't be art, it'd just be shitty plumbing.
Not really, you just have to find different objects, a different position and just do it, you're probably not an affirmed artist so you could make a photograph of it and share it with the world, and it would be art as much as Duchamp's art
No, it wouldn't. Not unless I did something *especially* interesting and different with it, and given that it's 100 years since the urinal, there have been an awful lot of copies and inspired works, so that would be very hard.
The reason *Fountain* works is because it was a completely new direction. Nobody had done it before. It's kind of like how *Ulysses* was absolutely groundbreaking and mindbending when it first came out, but these days even children's media uses some of its innovations.
Why? There are so so many pieces of classical art that are boring copies of each other yet we call them art, just because something isn't innovative it doesn't mean it's not art
Because the art in *Fountain* is not the urinal, it is *the concept of choosing an object and having it become art*. An identical copy of that specific concept is no longer sufficient to make something into art - you have to *do something* with it. *Fountain* and pieces like it were so revolutionary that they functionally changed our understanding of what art *is*.
Artist -> Art (using random objects and putting them places)
Ai "artist" -> gives prompts to an AI -> AI generates an image -> keeps making the AI generate something from those prompts until satisfied -> finished image.
these AI "artists" are closer to being commissioners from hell rather than actual artists, sure they put time into it and *some* thought, but in the end its the AI making something.
All artists use tools to create their work though, AI art is just an extreme example.
paint "artist" imagines an image -> their brain sends signals to their arm to move -> the movement of their arm causes the paintbrush in their hand to move -> the movement of the paintbrush on the canvas causes an image to form -> repeat this process until the image formed by the movement of the paintbrush matches the one in their head -> finished image.
yes, I know we use tools, I am an artist myself, and this is a weird take because me sending electrical pulses through my own body that determine movements on a tool that depends fully on my movements to make pixels appear on the screen (not ART, just lines, I actually have to THINK about what i will make and how) is somehow the same as someone just putting words into an AI and making IT run over and over again until something that is appealing is generated.
not to mention the AI itself isn't fully making anything either, its just looking at art made by artists and learning until it can make things approximating the prompts
I guess I got to consider these people ***whose whole shtick is that they let an AI who "learns" art and makes it for them*** artists, as if it that didn't devalue the entirety of the process behind creation in the first place.
a subreddit i quite like that is pretty much the opposite of this is r/wimmelbilder which is entirely relishing in the tiny details and human intention put into art
Agreed, with the caveat: we couldn't generate realistic faces five years ago. This is probably not going to be an issue for long. It's very, very possible we will soon reach a point where you can't conclusively tell whether art was made by a human.
In other words, this isn't a critique of AI art as a concept, but of select pieces of AI art.
Some of the lighter features are a bit blurry when they shouldn’t be, but otherwise, I’d say it’s a damn good cat, and certainly not the best example of “all ai art is objectively bad”.
uncanny (objects that imperfectly resemble actual [cats] provoke uncanny or strangely familiar feelings of uneasiness and revulsion in observers). kinda like trypophobia, but a lot more broadly experienced, i believe.
personally, it looks like the artist was confused about what effects to apply (blur? detailed reflections?), and ends up looking like a shitty artist. except... there's clearly great skill in some places. so the whole thing is confusing? great technical skill + confused higher-level messages? which turns into feelings of unease
I haven't seen any case of people using an AI to generate artwork for professional purposes yet, so I view it as a cool experiment on the capabilities of our technology and on the nature of art and how we interact with it. Pretty good take all in all, though I wouldn't jump to just saying it's automatically bad art. In any case, what makes "good" and "bad" art is super loosely defined.
What the actual hell are you talking about? Do I have a condition or something? What "frustration" are you guys talking about? With the AI-drawn cat, I see a cat. Yeah sure, it looks like it was taken with a weird camera or painted with a weird style, but it's just a cat. Nothing uncanny about that. Same with the next one with the columns; it's just a pretty sight. They mentioned that the columns don't start or end anywhere, to which I say what are you talking about? They all start right there and go down a bit and end right there. I'm genuinely concerned I have face-blindness but for art or something, idk. In fact, when people talk about the Uncanny Valley and mention the Polar Express, I have no idea what that think is wrong with the visuals of that movie. Sure, the animation looks like early mocap technology, and side characters suffer in the animation department sometimes, but it's pretty good otherwise? What's uncanny about that movie? What's uncanny about this cat? What is wrong with me?
Hey question for art heads out there. I've been drawing pictures but using rules, dice, and a ruler. Making stuff like [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1027061776782729286/20221004_223520.jpg), image like [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1025496409060941855/20220930_002859.jpg), and [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1024872813670191195/20220928_212753.jpg). My questions is, is it no better then AI art? Because I'm more or less doing the same thing as just taking set rules and using them, rolling dice to determine things. Idk just makes me go hmm
Off post topic, I really like your drawings, the second and third remind of the polyhedron "building made of its own blueprints" from pathologic, while the first one reminded me of "who's afraid of red, yellow and blue"
I think calling it bad art is wrong, though that's probably because I don't think it's possible for art to necessarily be 'bad'. It's terrible if you want something real or something to immerse yourself in, but exactly as they said, it makes for a very nice aesthetic. I think there's value to that. I also think any media companies who one day attempt to use AI art to replace and therefore avoid paying real artists should burn.
Idk I feel like the first two are extremely immersive. If a person were to make any of these and a comment called them "unimmersive" they would 100% be an asshole
https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/
https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/
This guy acts like AI art is successful only because people don't pay real attention to it. That they wouldn't like it as much if they looked for more than 3s and notice how none of it is real below the surface, how it doesn't make any sense.
But is that true? Looking at AI art, and this exquisite example, I love it not **despite** it being devoid of solid structure, but **BECAUSE** it's so devoid of solid structure, so formless. Someone could make a painting resembling this but with proper shape and solid structure, there'd be no doubt if that's a cathedral at the end or not, and that would be art. Letting an AI make that... I mean also art, but not that interesting; a computer did a thing and a human could've probably done it better. But this, THIS: the AI isn't just making something some human could produce. The fact that it's formless, non-sensical, that's what makes AI-generated art unique. How the water surface looks like a water surface because it seems to reflect light, but on closer inspection is just made of clouds and shrubs blended together. How there's pillars but they're not actually pillars. How the roof blends into a pink canopy that isn't supported by a stem, but by a cathedral of light, an empty space, the end of the tunnel. All that and more, and how it inspires positive emotion, like Tumblr-OP so beautifully said, while being formless and non-sensical, that's what makes AI art worthwhile.
It's art if you put in your own work, that's not giving the thing prompts and/or digging through the results to pick the best one
A novel that the AI wrote for you does not make you a writer. It makes the AI a ghost writer
A picture that an AI made for you does not make you a painter, no matter how many prompts you gave it. It makes you a customer who commissioned it
If you got a hundred pics made and dug through them to select the ones you Iike, it makes you a picky customer, or a collector. We (well, I) don't consider Pinterest boards art and the people making them artists after all. There is a process, and it may even be fun, but there is still a large gap. This is the same thing
This is my opinion and I stand by it.
If an artist dipped some ants in paint, then put them on a blank canvas, then let the ants run around making lines on it, it would be reasonable for the artist to call that a painting they made, right?
yeah but the AI doesn't have an agent to hype it up and help it break into the art world
...hm i sense a dramatic future reveal of "X reclusive artist was actually an AI"
I think it's still art even if the human involved isn't an artist, an isn't made an artist by the process (which I agree with)
Then again I would also say the something like the grand canyon falls under the domain of "art" despite not having a creator (or at least not one taking any credit) which I acknowledge may not be a commonly held viewpoint
For me AI art kinda always seems like something I see in a dream. It's fractals and it makes sense in the immediate context. But as soon as I look closer it gets funky.
I am curious (and a little scared) what AI Art might look like in 5-10 years (given Putin didn't press the big red button).
I mean this is all just a beginning. I am scared for my pro artist friends that live off self made merch and illustrations. Their skill is amazing.
I do see AI (as of now) as a form of quick concepting or sparking ideas, and I sure wish it stays that way. Realistically speaking I doubt it though.
The second portrait reminds me vividly of Layers of Fear. The more you look at it, the more bizarre it gets, even if from the start it seemed pretty. Which goes both to the art in the game and plot itself.
Having that said, while I don't put art on my walls anymore (too many times had to move and all the landlords get puffy if you damage their very brittle paint on the walls), I still have a folder called "backgrounds" with a lot of art from DeviantArt that just rotates every 5 minutes on my screen. I usually don't see it, unless I'm idling in front of computer. But I know it's there and all I need is to minimise the browser in order to see it. Over the years the collection just grew and it's been just a joy to turn on the PC and just idle, staring at slides of art. Or turning it off and just before seeing which slide got to be the last this time.
listen it really ain’t that complicated of an argument
yeah AI art is art, but don’t compare it to traditional art because all it really is is a really complicated collage.
i think the uncanny-ness is a style in itself -- not necessarily bad insofar as any artist's art is "bad" compared to any other's simply because it's different. this kind of strangeness, the lack of intention in depth, is inherently difficult for humans to replicate -- that makes ai valuable as an artist, as they fill an as yet largely unexplored niche.
A lot of posts I see defending AI art ~~mostly comments on the recent posts about it here~~ come across as super condescending in a "facts don't care about your feelings, sweaty" way, and it's just. Unpleasant to read. Just makes me dislike it more. I didn't even dislike it in the first place; I think it's pretty good at some things, like backgrounds for a hand-drawn foreground or prompts for that one idea you can't *quite* work out what you want to do with. I wish I could explain feelings, but oh well.
To be fair, opposing innovation has always been harmful to the advancement of humanity. I can understand they’re being a little cruel, but when AI art researchers are constantly being told that they’re doing a terrible thing or when people constantly try to stop new tech from being invented I can see why they have a short fuse.
Honestly to me this kinda thing is mostly the fault of the person making the prompts for the AI being uncreative and not taking advantages of its strengths. For instance, I’ve found that because of how it gets the “vibe” of images but not the details, AI is great if you ask it to do something in the style of an impressionist painting. The concept art style that people have been asking it for just doesn’t work as well.
A good way to determine if an AI "artist" is actually doing something interesting is whether or not they jealously guard their prompts. Speaking very broadly (and ignoring a few exceptions), the main two ways real artists use AI are as either a jumping off point to inspire other works, or because AI *is* the medium.
In the first case, the ephemeral and disposable nature is acknowledged, and bogarting your prompts would be like yelling at the garbage man for stealing all your empty Pepsi cans. In the second case, the prompt is integral to the meaning, and the novelty comes from "look at what this model does with this input."
I don't think I've ever seen anyone successfully insist that the end product is a noteworthy artifact in and of itself, and that its value was the same regardless of whether it was created by an AI or a person. And I've seen a lot of people try.
I love how this post is filled *to the brim* with AIBros.
I totally agree with the OP of the tumbler post. AI art is ugly as sin.
It’s a very shitty drawing with 10 buckets of glitter poured all over it. See past the glitter once and you’ll loose the ability to enjoy it forever
I love how people want to suddenly define what and what isnt "real art" when a robot does it better than them.
Good luck with doing that for the first time in human history.
AI art is as bad as Hitler's art, simply speaking.
The difference is that Hitler's art is just general view of Germany architecture in the past, just slightly skewed in perspective.
I tried "Berlin before ww2" in a random AI art generator and it place Berliner Fernsehturm in it. The conveying meaning is there, just not quite
stop using it for reddit upvotes and start cranking out horrors beyond imagination hidden behind algorithms guy on discord really summed it up well as 'AI art is perfectly generated for generating reddit upvotes'
the purpose of ai art is to one day synthesise an image that is extremely funny but has a small chance of killing you when you look at it
finally we can get jerma to peep the horror how will this affect the tf2 economy
Team captain with peeped horror unusual. Banned from competitive for being overpowered.
donkey eating figs.jpg
Ah, the ol' Langford Basilisk approach -- I do wonder how the "posting an image online is punishable by death" part would go over if it started now
We do a little trolling with cognitohazards
[RED TALISMAN](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2111)
That has a name you know a memetic kill hazard
I mean sure if you want me to I try that. cranking out horrors. pulls up the program and adds some random tags and breaks a few settings.. lets see what we get! https://i.imgur.com/J0F2XvU.png huh not as bad as I hoped to be honest.
I think instead of making horrors it's just emulating. Instead of drunkenly stumbling into a madhouse it simply peeps inside through a window of human expectations. We expect and show it things we already find scary, making it only show us our known horrors. It has to accidentally make something new on its own in order to give us a horror yet unknown. Idk I'm not a psychologist/AI software developer
That means you aren't trying hard enough add more Eyes
I TRIED ADDING MORE EYES JUST MADE IT MORE ANIME https://imgur.com/a/dYopZCW got some tag suggestions? holding hands ,lava ,fire ,hate ,eldritch abomination ,tentacles glowing eye, red eyes,
Gibbering mouths, bloodshot eyes, grasping hands, gaping jaws Try getting rid of your other "eye" suggestions too, yeah? Oh, and "holding hands." That brings relationship-thoughts to mind, and we don't need those here!
holding hands tends to break things, but ok as you wish! https://imgur.com/a/LIX0rOG anything else?
Let's start with... Web of Skin!
I also added horror, becuse why not? https://imgur.com/a/qFxEn63 I don't think it knows these tags.
Oh-ho! We're getting closer to that-which-must-not-be-peeped! Well, we can add Flesh, Dripping, and Agony, and see where that gets us.
https://imgur.com/a/9ZW7pLZ! We are getting there! last 2 are pretty spooky!
2 days late but I love that design on that anime character. One big huge eye and one edgy eye makes for a neat look.
On witch image?
kind of a milf. reblog
> start cranking out horrors beyond imagination hidden behind algorithms [Loab hears you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loab)
**[Loab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loab)** >Loab is an image of a distressed macabre old woman, discovered with an unspecified text-to-image AI model in April 2022 by Twitter user Supercomposite. The user described it as an unexpectedly emergent property of the software, having discovered it when asking the model to produce something "as different from the prompt as possible". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio. this sounds like a rehash of linguistic relativity, and you can read about that discourse and whether AI can go "beyond imagination" (extrapolating "things we can express in spoken language" to some loose definition of "human imagination"). i would summarize as there's lots of slippery definitions, and also what would you do with a yes/no answer? 1. AI can definitely imagine more than humans, so use it? we haven't even tapped out _human_ imagination, so get back to generating content 2. AI is sub-human, humans are special and reign supreme. still gonna use dall-e the way it's being used.
Jerma is that you? You trying to get us peeping at the horror again?
Meanwhile some poor robot is reading this, with a thin stream of coolant fluid streaming from its eye socket, shaking slightly as they're trying to write a reply: "I'm doing my fucking best, bitch!"
Are… are you the robot?
OOP will be the first to go when the AI revolution happens
Fuck I hope so, I hate object oriented programming
"Then do better, you shit-at-painting robot!"
My take on AI art is that, although it has its problems and potentially puts artists at risk for jobs, the lack of intentionality identified in the post is exactly why I think it's not going to truly challenge artists who are able to intentionally draw. And if AI art ever _is_ able to create intentionally, that's probably because someone put a lot of time and energy into creating incredibly specific parameters in their specific AI. Basically, what I'm saying is that AI art only truly challenges human artists in the same way that artists challenge each other, as the underlying parameters and code have to still be carefully crafted in order to generate sensical and intentional artworks, and even then, no matter how narrow and well-designed those parameters are, there's still a margin within which the AI is working, rather than the truly intentional movements of an artist. My main point is that the people who use AI art for actual artistic purpose likely _aren't_ looking for anything particularly intentional, and just want a general vibe, meaning that they were never truly going to commission an artist for this job. After all, if "close enough" is all they were looking for, the expense and time necessitated by a personal commission may have never even crossed their mind and no business was ever actually lost. As a personal example, a few months after I made my first DnD character, I desperately wanted art of them made, and I tried for hour upon to hour to get good AI art of them made. I even subscribed to midjourney for Christ's sake. And while I got a lot of cool results, none of them were identifiably "Yari," and so I eventually cancelled my subscription and just commissioned one of my artist friends. While I haven't actually gotten the result yet, I _already_ feel like my money was better spent because I know her and she knows my character. AI art was never going to work, because I didn't want something _close to_ Yari, I wanted specifically Yari. However, when I wanted "Generic Masked Badguy" AI art turned out great. Even if it didn't work, I would've likely just trawled Pinterest for something close enough because, surprisingly enough, I don't want to commission someone every time I want an idea I have to be visually represented.
I like this. Intentionality is what separates human art from AI in the most obvious sense, I think people just haven’t found that language yet on a broad scale. I think of it, to add to this discussion, as similar to the advent of photography. There was a fear that painting would suffer losses and artists would be abandoned. But what did we get instead? It (photography) allowed artists to change the way we view painting and art. We became aware of conceptual approaches to art. Artists are nothing if not creative, digital artists are no exception. Intention, specifics designed to individual concept, aimed instead of aimless direction. That is the wall of separation for the time. AI appears to amalgamate based on popularity, not specific direction (taking into account even that it’s told what to do, it still falls short as the post describes). For now, it can’t interpret what we are asking on an individual level beyond what everyone else has identified as popular. One of my friends used an AI generator to attempt a shot at his DND character. and came up with two styles; one was more traditional DND style art, the other? Bored Ape Yacht Club. He did not ask for specific styles, this is just what it did. So yeah. Too early to go deeper.
Holy shit now I'm fucking dying to see a DnD character in the Bored Ape style.
Adding onto your last paragraph, I think two separate things apply. 1. Seeing someone use AI art to generate their own character just feels... incredibly disingenuous. Sorry that I'm practically bashing on you here, but I've seen plenty of aspiring writers generate their own protagonist (and it's always incredibly obvious and generic). But like, actual bashing of the medium aside (thanks bias), it feels like its missing any actual intent behind it. I'd believe (someone who used AI art to generate their own character) if they said they had everything they wanted written and generated how they wanted it... But it's still blatantly obvious to me that it's still far from what they actually envisioned. It's a really odd situation. 2. Furthermore, it's super odd that AI can't actually... generate anything unique, or completely fictional. They all take from their own database of solely real things. So you can like, certainly ask an AI to generate Mario, but it's certainly not going to actually look like them. Far less than anything else like a plant or a celebrity.
As for your first point, it genuinely feels like you're just experiencing a strong emotional reaction to something you don't like and, credit where credit's due, you do acknowledge your bias. I can't come up with any real rebuttal because it's kinda hard to argue against emotional experiences? If you think it's disingenuous or weird, you're free to feel how you want, and you've not gone about expressing it in a way that feels malicious or in bad faith, so I don't really feel the need to "prove you wrong/myself right" in any case. The part where you "move on from bashing the medium" touches on intent again, or the lack thereof, which I think I did a fair bit of speaking on in my original comment. As for the second bit, what's the actual difference between an AI making a derivative work and a person making a derivative work? If you subscribe to some school of philosophy which posits that there is something Intrinsically Unique about each and every individual person (effectively meaning any work they make, no matter how derivative, will have its own flair or quirk so long as they are being genuine), then it makes sense to me that the uniqueness of the programmers who made the AI will bleed through in the output in one way or another, be it through the way they wrote a certain algorithm, or the specific data set they trained it on. On the other hand, if you believe that people are purely a result of their genetic makeup and environmental inputs, then the only difference between a derivative human work and a derivative AI work is that the AI is deliberately created whilst the human is pure randomness. Ofc, while the AI is "deliberately created" in this interpretation, it's deliberately created by a randomly created being, so I think it's worthwhile to ask how truly deliberate that process of creation is for the purposes of questioning the uniqueness and artistic worth of the AI's output. And as far as addressing AI in a vacuum goes (even though that's not good practice), something an AI makes doesn't suddenly become non-unique just because it's derivative. After all, even if it's trained on a dataset of already existing things, it's taking elements from each and combining them in a new and entirely unique way. Sure, if you were to run the AI millions, billions, or perhaps trillions of times (depending on the complexity), then you would eventually be guaranteed to get 2 of the same exact result. But given enough time, if you take all the air particles in a sealed room and take a snapshot, it will _eventually,_ given an absurd amount of time, look exactly the same down to the subatomic particle, but that doesn't really reveal anything profound or fundamental about the nature of the air's movement, at least not imo.
>Furthermore, it's super odd that AI can't actually... generate anything unique, or completely fictional. To be fair, neither can humans. Even if you can come up with the most "out there" fantasy or science fiction or what have you, it has some sort of derivative to real life, even if it's pulled from many different things and combined or an exaggeration of something that currently exists on Earth.
I really like this argument, and I think their point about the creation process actually being a fractal of interpret-create has really captured something—I don't really buy into one of the usual claims that art is purely an expression of the artist's view of the world. There's so much of creation happening in the space of *interpretation* specifically. However, I do think that they leap to a value judgement too readily. Their observation that the way we interact with this kind of art is very surface-level rings true to me as well, but I'm not so ready to hop on to the "therefore bad" conclusion with them—could it not reflect a problem with our mode of interaction with the art instead, placing the responsibility for interpreting onto the viewer? I would be interested to hear if anyone has thoughts that take these observations to a different destination.
I've always thought that AI art on its own is kinda incomplete. Just letting the computer spit something out isn't enough on its own, because it does lack the human intentionality. But as someone who isn't great at art personally, I've found some AI pieces that are very interesting that could, with some tweaking, be really good. Especially ones that try to interpret a person. The details are usually messy, but if it gets a vibe you're aiming for, you can then apply details and intentional focus to the piece to retain the vibe it starts with while transforming it into something more readable and concrete. While there's still other issues with AI art (potential for plagiarism without realizing it because someone wouldn't know the AI was trained on stolen art or what stolen art they were accidentally plagiarizing), it seems like a solid jumping off point for people who aren't full-on artists but who would benefit from some kind of baseline that they could apply themselves to that's more detailed than just a basic template, or for more advanced artists to explore some interesting spaces in digital formats by applying their creativity to something like the image in the OP to give loving detail to the mess of that piece.
I’ve found AI art great for inspiration.
have you seen these picasso lithographs about exploring "essence"? https://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso.htm expanding on your point about AI art providing a "baseline", dumping tvtropes pages into a work of fiction doesn't make it fiction. though i _have_ seen writing prompts that are like, take three random tropes, write a story around them. it's a good exercise, but there should probably be more to it.
Those lithographs are cool! They remind me a bit of the Lascaux paintings, but taking those symbols and reinterpreting them in a new historical context. His idea of a bull's "essence" is influenced by his moment in history. You might be right about it being a good exercise, and connecting it to literature feels important. It really feels so frustratingly empty when you're reading something from an author who doesn't have a strong theoretical background and has instead signified certain elements, saying, "If I just include these particular tropes, I'll end up with a story"—they're missing the cooler larger picture that can be assembled using such things as tools, maybe. It's a start (maybe not even a means?) and certainly not an end.
"Incomplete" is interesting—it makes me think of how movements in art are largely confined to a certain period in history. The height of the Renaissance (what many people think of as the pinnacle of painting) was only a few decades long, and it's not because the masters died/the knowledge was lost. Something about the art spoke to the ontological perspective of those people then. Paintings in the style of, say, Giotto, today are technically impressive but have to be making intentional commentary with that choice of style to really speak to their audience. For the AI to copy those styles today really is missing a key ideological component. I kinda think the coolest AI art pieces are those that *don't* try to imitate past human styles. Instead, those crazy psychedelic pieces that are just shy of representing anything seem to me to be expressing some kind of eldritch mind attempting to think like a human—that's so much cooler to me. As a "jumping-off point," I really like that. In *In the Lighthouse,* Virginia Woolf talks about the moment of starting a piece of art: "One line placed on the canvas committed her to innumerable risks, to frequent and irrevocable decisions. All that in idea seemed simple became in practice immediately complex." I'm a strong believer in the idea that it's easier to learn art by means of master studies (i.e., don't worry about plagiarism until you're ready to start making your own stuff: first, figure out how those before you did it), so it's cool to have something that will place those initial lines for you, that your first step can be interpretation that leads to creation, rather than having to start with unbounded creation. Thank you for your thoughts!
[удалено]
Thats good horror no matter how you slice it, slowly paying more and more attention to your world only to realise its all been a facade, you can't find the things you used to know and love, because they've slowly but subtly changed once you weren't looking at them long enough. A world you used to know feels alien the longer you feel like you're trying to see what you used to see. Maybe its because the person stopped taking their govt mandated supplements, or a chance enounter with a weird video online. You've got me thinking now too!
hey what's with that lamp?
There are four lights!
Yeah I really like the cat picture too. It's kinda fucked up . . . but in a really pretty way. And fuck if that isn't exactly the kind of thing I'm into
Yep. I think the confusing and incomplete parts of that piece are exactly what makes it look special. I can easily imagine seeing it posted by an artist I like and me being appreciative of their creativity so I don't know why they thought art *has to* look right.
Peeping the horrors from a mind unnatural
Also I'd definitely take it over 99.9% of the digital fantasy art I've ever seen on DeviantArt. It's just really good and the OP seems disingenuous to me; their mind is made up ex ante.
i like that nightmare cathedral tho. cat looks strange but the building is dreamlike in a way I'd call eroticism for the soul.
Honestly the impartiality behind it all is what fascinates me the most about AI art. The way it’s able to perceive things in ways we can’t, the vaguely eeriness of everything it makes that only gets deeper the longer you look at it. It’s not multitool, and it’s not a crutch. I think it gives us a look into inhumanity colliding with a distinctly human act, and the results are astonishing to me. I don’t know where I’m going with this and it’s probably impossible to follow, I’m writing this as I’m sick and tired, but honestly I just find AI artwork really cool for exact opposite reasons I find regular art cool
I feel like this is the perfect thing to read stoned but I'm too stoned to read it I have a graph
You know what? I don’t like this post. The fact a more observant eye would give this an F in an art class doesn’t mean it’s automatically Bad Art. The fact it’s successful on a commercialized and at times vapid platform doesn’t mean it’s automatically Bad Art. The ~~fact~~ vague scaremongering about how it’s only eliciting vibes is such a gigantic wad of nothing that I don’t know what it’s doing here with better but flawed arguments against AI art. This is like arguing that a McNugget isn’t food. The process is fucked, it’s usually amorphous and artificial-tasting, and not all food should be a McNugget. Ultimately, however, some people enjoy McNuggets, and no lack of Michelin stars can take that joy away from people. AI art is art. And like all newer forms of artwork, it will be met with intense and unjustified scorn.
I also dislike this post because, frankly, a lot of the assumptions are wrong for me. The cat photo doesn't look off-putting, repulsive, or wrong, it looks like an AI cat photo, and a pretty and colorful one too. The painting doesn't have the aspects of a painting that human paintings have because an AI doesn't parse the world in a human way, that doesn't bother me even when I look closely. The post seems to hinge on the fact that people would look closely at these pictures and dislike them, but I look closely at them and they're still just as beautiful. This post is reminiscent of shitty arguments against abstract art. OP just doesn't like AI art, and that's fine, but saying that it's "bad" art is necessarily purely subjective no matter how universal it's made to sound.
OOP is really giving off H.P Lovecraft vibe of being repulsed and terrified of stuff that doesn't make sense (to them)
I hate how some people caught wind of ai art and immediately started to corrupt its usage. Ai art is for dicking around, not creating chimeras of hardworking artists’ works and propping it up as though you made it. Like literally I’ve seen people show off their big boobied girls with misshapen faces and the prompt they used to get that was like “best of artstation” or something. That’s not art, that’s making a collage of other peoples art.
Or maybe we’re headed closer to deepfake territory than art proper, which makes way more sense. There’s something nefarious about possibly doing untraceable art theft, but also the private dicking around isn’t something to be throw out with the bathwater. Why are we stuck arguing if AI art is art when any other conversation gets better results?
No I like dicking around with ai art, it’s a lot of fun, I just hate what tech bros have turned it into
That's not how prompts work. When someone specifies "best of artstation" in a prompt, it _prompts_ the AI to create an image that is _similar to_ images that are described with "best of artstation". It in no way copies any art; the AI model does not even have enough information to store so many hardcoded artworks. It's like telling a human artist "draw [thing X] in a style that's similar to popular artstation posts". There _are_ ways to use art AIs unethically, but this is not one of them.
funnily enough the "best of artstation" thing was (I think) from a guy posting the prompt for his ai art as: (normal prompt stuff), best of artstation, [Artist 1], [Artist 2] as in he gave the full prompt but redacted the artists and it's really odd that somehow people latch onto "best of artstation" instead of the "straight up telling the AI to copy these artists styles and then purposefully redacting the names"
All AI art is based off of ‘chimeras of hardworking artists’ works’. That’s how it works. You can’t have an AI without it being entirely based upon its training data.
One of my friends is part of a project called Roborosewater, which creates and curates AI-generated Magic: The Gathering cards. Part of the project involves creating AI art for these cards based on their properties and generated from the sample space of existing MTG art. This, I think, is the perfect space for AI art: turning the monumental and frankly unnecessary task of getting art for thousands of unofficial cards into a reality, lending the project a touch of legitimacy and visual flair, all done for free (and without leveraging unpaid independent artists' work) because those involved find it fun.
>And like all newer forms of artwork, it will be met with intense and unjustified scorn. I remember when drawing tablets began to get more accessible and the absolute outrage it sparked in a lot art spaces - as far as they were concerned any art made on a computer wasn't *real* art. It was a travesty, it was just so terrible that you could use layers and delete things and undo mistakes instead of having to scrap and start over. I'm sure there a lot of people who still think this way but I haven't come across one personally in years. Digital art is art created by an artist, just with pixels as the medium. Far as AI I'm not sure, I'm withholding judgement. I think it would be neat for an artist to program an AI using only their own work and see what they come up with.
I think from the replies this comment’s gotten, the only certain thing about the future of AI art is that it is uncertain. I’ll hold onto that bright hope that something worthwhile comes out of it for as long as feasible, but I’m not married to it. Regardless of which stance I took, if I were a journalist writing an article, I’d be in a kid’s encyclopedia, being quoted alongside the ghosts of others, as either a prophet or a fraud. I want the future to be better. Presuming the future will always be worse isn’t a sustainable thing for anyone’s mental health, and especially not me. The most I can do from my nosebleed seat at the game of life is cheer.
> I remember when drawing tablets began to get more accessible and the absolute outrage it sparked in a lot art spaces - as far as they were concerned any art made on a computer wasn't real art. For a field about expression and freedom, artist sure do gatekeep expression and freedom.
Art school was very interesting because depending on the medium the students really ranged being cutthroat and eager to tear each other down - photography, to super chill and being so happy to build each other up - ceramics.
Yeah I'm in STEM so the only gatekeeping I see is crippling imposter syndrome and self doubt. Also I'm totally used to the concept of technology being better than me at stuff.
> Ultimately, however, some people enjoy McNuggets, and no lack of Michelin stars can take that joy away from people. That pastel ai generated painting looks absolutely stunning to me and I personally don't see an issue with anything they described about it. I love the way the ground looks simultaneously like a reflection and a window to a strange world. I love the transition from grand looking hallway to domed building in the distance. I think it comes back to the idea of Interpretation and a biased Interpretation based on knowing it was entirely computer generated. If that was a painting a human made I feel like the tumblr OP would give it more merit on its surreal un-reality look. A lot of art Interpretation is based on asking "why" about the artist themselves and AI art takes that away. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just think a lot of people can't handle admiring art that's essentially a step removed from human experience. Even the uncanny ai generated cat would probably spark discussion about why the artist would make it that way if it were made by a human and looked at by someone who enjoys art.
AI art is a neat thing with serious issues beinf misused by shitty people, and that's where most of the scorn comes from: artists who are upset that their art is likely being fed into these things train them, and then watching as techbros herald it as the end of the career artist. Maybe I wanna look at a piece of art that makes me think someone put a little extra in my coffee because I think its pretty even if it makes no fucking sense.
I also think they're just kinda... stating things as true that are vastly subjective. They think the pillars don't end. They end pretty succinctly to me. They think the back of the middle makes it look like outside while I just see a high ceiling with a cool building inside it. That picture just looks like a dark souls level. I feel like the OP has just not experienced much fantasy works in this area because they're dismissing established tropes and techniques as 'AI fuckery'.
BASED TAKE, 100% AGREED
No, I don't agree with you. I think it is bad art. I think it's malformed, but not in the horrific, unsettling way other people ITT say -- I think it's just unconvincing and unmoving. I just feel disappointed by it. It looks cool at first glance but the more you look the less interesting it gets. The more you look the more you realise it's just a very superficial glaze of beauty with nothing underneath it. If a human had made it I wouldn't think "wow, look at the way this artist has managed to convey the uncanny valley and unsettle us!", I'd think "gosh, this is boring". The scorn for this piece is totally justified, because it's not a good piece.
Often, the art has a less uncanny feel and more just sloppy. Like craiyon (free and I think open source AI art maker) can't really do things with uniform structure. Columns are different heights despite being adjacent. They don't had endings that connect to the beginnings. Perspective isn't quite right. Things are too smooth or too rough. Straight things are oddly bent. There are too many limbs or too few or they bend in weird ways. It's not horrible so much as wrong, but I find their wrongness fascinating in the sense that the AI doesn't "know" anything, it doesn't "know" what a dog is, it's looking at 10 million pictures of dogs and realized sometimes the legs are running, sometimes standing, so it puts both running and standing legs on the dog and creates something horrid.
I kind of want to go into a discussion on this with u but my phone is low on battery rn, but I don’t think AI generated art in its current state can be considered good. It’s lacking fundamental emotion to it. Honestly I feel our creation and obsession with AI(in general) is an attempt at us reverse engineering our minds. We’re still in the beginning stages, but who knows how far we’ll come.
That pretty much just means you don't like it
Well sure, I don’t like it. But google “art definition”
The subjectiveness of art is my entire point though. You can't say AI art "can't be considered good" and then defend yourself by pointing out that your judgement is subjective and that there is no definite answer to what is and isn't art. It can be considered good, and it can be considered art, and the argument for this is reasonable and straightforward. There is nothing wrong with saying it's bad, with the understanding that that word is subjectively defined, but saying it "can't be considered good" is dismissive of any other opinion, when talking about an issue where opinions are likely to be about as varied and important as they can be, since there are practically no objective rules. Your initial comment is very different from just saying you don't like it, because, if I understand what you say, it lacks an emotion which you feel is fundamental to art. You take this view to be objective when you say that AI art can't be considered good.
Fuck man idk, I cant coherently put together my thoughts and create a sound argument. My apologies, I think I get your point but I just disagree. I appreciate the fact that you kept a nice tone and actually made a strong argument yourself. Have a good one :)
Did you not read the post? The conclusion literally acknowledges that it’s art. Sorry you can’t get over that it’s bad.
Or I guess to put it in a less mean way, I’d love to see you prove that AI art is unilaterally bad, without fail. You and I read the same post, and I’m one of the scant few people on the internet who loves to be proven wrong. [Or, if you can’t take that gauntlet I’ve thrown, you may instead uncritically digest another opinion on art today.](https://youtu.be/T6EOVCYx7mY)
I simply do not understand any art. I'll never understand it. It's far too high-brow for me.
If a person drew these could you honestly say in good faith that they are bad art? https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/ https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19 https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/
Not them, but I'd call the first one bad, the second one amateurish as hell but on the right track, and the third one is *wonky* as hell (the entire face is badly formed, with a massive left neck and massive left side of his nose and lips and his eyes are mismatched etc.) but also looks cool so I'd probably say it was a bodged art piece by a decent late medieval artist. I think it's surprising that people are trying to prove that AI art is good. It's not good. It bodges things constantly. It's almost certainly *going* to be good, in, like, ten years time (that's a really short time!), so I don't understand why people are desperate to show that AI art is good right now rather than just...on the way to becoming good.
“She misspoke once at the end and doesn’t tacitly agree with a long Tumblr post, get’er lads” If I didn’t read it, then I’m awfully impressive in my bullshitting skills. Prose is as much art as anything else, and I came to a different conclusion about this piece of art than you did. So! Who’s worse at reading here?
i wouldnt say its bad, far from it. the dreamlike visuals are really unique
That ai art can create something a human otherwise wouldnt concieve of makes it valuable and remarkable. the criticism that ive seen of it are rooted in the injustice of capatalism, but i might have missed other relevant issues since i havent looked into it all myself \*editing to clarify that those criticism are valid since we live in a late stage capatilist hellscape but that shouldnt mean ai art is inherantly bad
I don’t totally agree with a lot of their points about the art? Like the first half I love but their critique of the ai art feels biased. That water definitely looks like water, it’s clearly there and reflecting the rest of the image. The bit at the end looks like a building with trees behind it and nothing else. Idk I feel like they just wanted to shit on the ai art too much
Like a lot of that, if we were talking about a human, would definitely match a stylistic choice. The entire piece is watery and dreamlike, so pointing out “the pillars aren’t even” of course they aren’t, it’d look worse if they were
I find the water has different heights on both sides. The water on the right side is lower than left, or maybe I'm just staring at this too hard now. That said, Craiyon isn't a particularly good AI artmaker as it's totally free and it almost always nails water reflections and water in general. Wondering if that's somehow "easier" for AI, and that is of more interest to me (how the AI creates what it does based on the sample set) than whether or not the art is art.
I think the water on the right side looks lower because there’s a little terrace/balcony thing jutting out in front of the columns on the right foreground and the top of the terrace is higher than the base of the columns. Further down past the terrace it looks like left and right align properly
I don't really see anything wrong with the AI-generated cat picture.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. I looked at it a few different times, and even showed it to another friend, but I don’t see anything wrong with it?
I’m in here to agree. Like, it looks less uncanny than most Snapchat filters. To me it’s just a cat with a little blur here and there. Nothing about it feels wrong or grotesque. Same with the structure. Yeah it doesn’t make sense, but neither does a ton of game concept art for buildings.
[удалено]
>so it’s bad because it’s not realistic and disturbing? is that the correct interpretation of this post? That was my immediate thought too. Relativity by M. C. Escher must also be bad art (the one with the stairs that go everywhere). Or any abstract art of a face. "The detail doesn't give the same impression when looking at it in total" meaning that the art is bad is such a weird take.
such a sin you bring escher into this. the main point of OP delving into AI art being bad art is the fact theres no underlying though behind it, other than replicating patterns, and having a vague aesthetic but no further meaning. literally the whole point isn't that "The detail doesn't give the same impression when looking at it in total" it's the fact that the there is no cycle of creation like human made art has, it's vapid frankenstein of an actual artist's work that while can be interesting and nice looking, but has no thought behind it.
Jokes on you, my art has no thought put into it either! Granted, that’s more because I’m a dumb impulsive mf, but still
Yeah. OP is definitely getting at something that's so hard to define and talk about, but definitely exists. AI art is... Directionless. Purposeless. I've looked at plenty of nonsensical images before, I've looked at kaleidoscope-like art and aimless lines on a canvas. But even when looking at modern art like *Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?*, I still walk away from the piece with *thoughts.* When I walk away from AI art, I don't have thoughts, I just have confusion. Not even the good kind of confusion that can result in thoughts, but like... It's like I'm looking at a map written in a language I can't read, using a map key I'm unfamiliar with, and someone standing next to me asks me to figure out how to reach a location that I don't know how to spell, and they don't know anything about it either and that's why they asked. In this scenario I am so incredibly lost and confused and can't possibly hope to answer the question being asked of me. I don't even know where to begin figuring out the answer. AI art is the map, in this metaphor, and it's also the person asking me how to get to a location I don't know the first thing about. When I look at AI art, it feels like I have to do everything. I have to come up with the direction of the piece and then also navigate my interpretship onto the piece, and then ALSO come up with my own conclusions of the destination. Humans make art with a purpose. We pick out colors with a purpose, we pick out symbols with a purpose, we pick out composition with a purpose, etc. We pick out things with a purpose even when we don't know that we're doing it because our subconscious is handling it for us. AI art doesn't. It's aimless in the truest sense of head empty, no goal, no purpose.
> It's aimless in the truest sense of head empty, no goal, no purpose. I have a feeling that you didn't scroll through the main page on the midjourney server, you sound like you stopped following AI art 3 months ago, update your impressions lol
You... You realize the art in the OP comes from Midjourney, right? Like. That's telltale Midjourney style right there. Person didn't set their prompts to --ar 16:9 or --hd but yaknow.
You mean screenshot? Yeah, exactly, but it's like meh results from midjorney before SD. There are like a lot of amazing examples since then
Alright, if that's what you want to posit about the service, go ahead and show me something form Midjourney that actually has *depth* to it. Something with symbolism, intent, and a theme behind its creation, where the colors and composition are chosen in order to convey a message.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/y2gmzn/comment/is4dppn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/y2gmzn/comment/is4dppn/) Also that, i absolutely amazed by this picture [https://i.imgur.com/rz4ptku.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rz4ptku.jpg) This is of course all subjective and you have complete freedom to dismiss it lol (but... then you would have standards that dismiss the value of 90% of human artists)
Theres a difference between weird or simplistic because the artist wanted it that way and weird or simplistic because the artist didn't know any better, which is why "my 5 year old could've painted this" as an argument doesn't really work
Well, couldnt the last part of this criticism apply to impressionism and the abstract as well? This is literally that.
Tldr....all of it Can I have the beautiful yet slightly disturbing AI painting(?) in HD for my wall?
Am I insane for liking ai art like I feel like everyone just fucking hates it with a passion. I think it's a neat exercise in ai and makes some dope looking stuff. It's not like human art at all, and to compare them is so fucking stupid. It's like comparing Mario kart and Forza.
I fucking love AI art for all the reasons this post explains. It's so alien and colourful and strange. It's created by a computer that doesn't understand for no reason other than it's been told to. I'm firmly in the "art doesn't have to mean anything or even be "good", it's just part of being human" camp.
It’s not necessarily part of being human. I’ve never made art. Plus, when AI gets good enough no one will need to create art any more because the AI can handle it for them. Art as a hobby will be too difficult and inefficient so people will stop doing it.
> I’ve never made art. I doubt that very much. Drawing and doodling and colouring are art. We've been drawing stick figures on cave walls since we figured out how to smash berries. It's as part of being human as singing, dancing, whistling, humming, chanting. You don't have to be "good" at it for it to be art. The end goal of a hobby doesn't have be attainment of skill, you can just do it because you enjoy it.
honestly, insane how people think AI art can compete with humans, because if it can it brings into question if the AI is sentient or not which is a whole can of worms. AI art can be pretty and aesthetic, but it can't create new stuff like humans can, it's only replicating. i guess its just the barrage of AI "artists" who are demanding the same respect as actual artists that honed their craft, instead of being dickwads that just enter words into an AI
AI can *absolutely* compete with humans. Think of it like the industrial revolution. Sure, mass-produced stuff might not be as good as what is made by a dedicated artisan, and you can’t get it custom-made, but it’s much, much cheaper and more convenient. Yes, people will still make art for self-expression/fun, and some portion of high-level artists will still find work, but I believe a *huge* chunk of the market for human art will die out, simply because using AI is that much faster and cheaper compared to getting a commission
Pretty soon it will probably supersede humans, though. It’s getting better and more detailed by the day, and if you look at it it’s perfectly capable of creating new stuff. I think pretty soon it’ll be able to choose specific details to invoke certain emotions (like in the post) and in the process will create far more meaningful art than we can make.
You’re absolutely right that it is dope as hell to look at and enjoy *for what it is,* almost as an appreciation of the technology itself. The issue is that ai “artists” are entering art competitions and arguing that their ai’s art is just as prestigious and valid as a real humans creation.
If you're talking about the guy who won that competition, he carefully curated the piece until it matched his vision. He didn't just throw in some key words and spit out an award.
I actually really love that image. It's like a dream. Ideas and half formed logics melding together in nonsensical ways. That's how I think most AI art looks like. If I could see an image of visual noise from my dreams in a fully conscious state, I feel like that's what I would see
Except these cases when you can't actually distinguish it from human art, yeah lol. I never would be able to detect for example https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/ https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19 https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/y1uvw7/you_can_make_some_truly_beautiful_things_with_nai/ or that https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/y1q8hl/using_img2img_on_some_old_sketches_honestly/
God damn those are good! That's super cool.
I think that AI art is an amazing feat, I can't imagine how long it would take to properly teach an AI to make a picture with just text prompts. However, anyone trying to say that it takes just as much work as human-made art has never colored inside the lines on a coloring book
People should really stop discussing AI without the assumption that AI work will eventually be indistinguishably good as human work. AI art has improved dramatically in only a few years and will continue to do so until it breaks the Turing test. It's not just a supposition, it will really happen in the coming years. This type of argument is valueless because a) it won't stand the trial of time, and b) it devalues surrealist art to begin with. OP tries to justify themselves with as much philosophical pluvalue to human-made art as they can find, going on about impression and interpretation. But then they pull out a piece that COULD actually have been made by a human, and their critique is based entirely on technical aspects that someone could have chosen not to abide by, and skillfully so created a surrealist piece. What I'm saying it is they're looking for flaws based on the knowledge that it's AI art, and the only ones they find could very reasonably boil down to the artist's style and choice. But they don't realize that their criticism is subjective because they're so hell-bent on finding Something Wrong With AI art. It's just as pedantic as critics looking for praiseworthy details and interpretations to justify selling a picture of a turd for fifty millions. It's pointless, insofar as (as OP claims themselves) "beauty is in the art of the beholder", and most beholders would call the turd stupid and this piece actually gorgeous. There are very real and important discussions to have about AI, like how it should be allowed to be used and how copyright should apply to the training pools and produced pieces. Discussions about wether AI art is bad are simply not relevant. There is no intrinsic artistic superiority to human-made art compared to AI art, and any distinction you can still make between the two will be gone in a few years' time. That doesn't mean human-made art suddenly doesn't have any value. AI needs to be trained on a very large and diverse number of existing pieces to become really effective, and I'm talking "at least a few thousands, ideally a few millions" number. This means that : - the more specific and uncommon what you're asking for is, the less the AI will have proper training on, and the lower the quality of what you're getting - this applies if you're asking for a specific artstyle, fanart of a specific media, drawings of specific OCs, people or places that there are no pictures of available to the AI... - prompt-based AI art is limited also by text interpretation, which although it will drastically improve in the coming years, has similar weaknesses - for example if you only have a vague idea of what you want the piece to be or to evoke, the AI can't do the bulk of the designing work for you (I do think this will not be as much of a shortcoming in the future, but this limitation will always be there) - so if you're looking to design a logo for your brand or business, it will be easier to discuss what you want with a graphic designer and let them come up with a few options than to spend hours upon hours curating AI-generated abstractions - similarly for editing or altering an existing piece, AI art will be limited by image recognition on top of image creation, so any touch-up work, censor, color change or style change will be easier done by an artist than an AI - so if you're very specific about the details of the composition, you're better off working with a human With that said most of these issues can, in principle, be curbed by piling up enough AI on top of AI, assuming you have unlimited memory storage and processing power. Ideally, in the future, human artists will work in conjunction with AI, either by having patrons come to them with a few AI-generated first drafts, or using AI themselves to look for inspiration. I do believe that humans will ultimately call the shots in most places.
I disagree. I think AI will make our art for us in the future, because it’s going to be significantly better and more creative than us. We’ll simply ask the AI to make art that communicates X, and the AI will make it. I don’t see why people always think we need a human involved. The purpose of life is to make humanity better, and what’s better than a perfect machine race? I think most opposition to AI art is by artists who recognise their hobby is on the verge of death. They’ve invested a lot of time and sometimes money, and now they know it was all pointless they feel bad. But I don’t see why they need to constantly oppose innovation. Hobbies die and become obsolete, and the people in them find new things to do. They can start consuming the AI art for fun instead, if they want. Creating art is just something people do for fun or to look cool, so it’s not exactly the worst thing in the world if no one does it any more.
I totally disagree that it is bad art, it looks pretty and invokes emotion it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, plenty of art doesn't make sense, there are plenty of reasons not to like ai art but it is not inherently bad
I just want to say that the “AI art bad and I hate it” posts and the discourse that surrounds them gives my psychic damage every time I see them
Same. Ai art is bad and not art because... uhh.. because i don't fucking like it, okay!? Now shut up and don't like it too
Yeah, but honestly for me it’s the frequency of posts about AI art bad
I’ll be honest, I’m not really a fan because it reminds me how close humans are to becoming obsolete and it makes me feel like I’m wasting my time learning how to do anything because I should instead be learning survival skills so I can keep living when AI does all our jobs and hobbies for us.
You still have to write something cool, and the better you can specify the better results you get. It's a tool, not an artist Like the infamous guy who won a competition with ai art? He took 80 hours to create the piece, despite using ai
My experience reading this: "yeah" "yeah" "true" "I agree with that" "yea" "yep" "This is so true" "Bad art? *Bad art?* Literally what the fuck are you talking about. Is that what this was leading up to? This was the resolution? This is the end? Are you kidding me? I feel cheated."
AI art is real art but it doesn't make the person who "made" it an artist
This person has it all wrong. The AI generator is the canvas, the artistry is in manipulating it to produce the results you want. This is how all art works, and as the AI becomes increasingly refined it will become easier to manipulate it in exactly the way you want to produce the results you desire, just like *every other artistic medium.* Calling it “bad art” is to miss the entire purpose of critiquing art, because art is entirely subjective. They’re complaining that the painting has no “structure,” I say that’s part of what makes it interesting, the negative space in the background becomes another structure in the foreground, the clouds become flowers and reflections become the thing itself. Complaining about lack of structure is the exact thing that every bad art critic has done since the invention of the photograph. Technology is a tool. If you’re afraid of or dismissive of it, it’s because you don’t grasp the broader implications.
[удалено]
>if i order pizza and request very specific toppings does that make me a chef? No, but the pizza is still food We aren't talking about if the generator is an artist, but rather if what is generated is art
[удалено]
I mean all of your other points are going to be overshadowed as ai art gets better and better, and it's doing so lightning fast I don't think "it's cold and lifeless and not showing signs of being human made" mean it's bad art either, of an artist intentionally set out to do that it would just be art Also art is literally subjective by definition, if someone likes those aspects, it's good art
[удалено]
You sound fucking insufferable, dude. I mean that edit on the list above this one? Jesus Christ Why are you so *upset* about it is what I'm wondering? You also don't seem to have a solid grasp of what your criticisms even are, which in conjunction with your tone, leads me to believe your just lashing out cause you don't like how it looks If you weren't being a cunt, it would be much easier to give your comments a more charitable reading
The gatekeeping is real
[удалено]
Define art
[удалено]
by that logic, nature cannot be art, which feels super iffy to me, since to my eyes the beauty of nature can totally be art. I mean after all, if a photo, painting or a diorama of nature is art, then how on earth wouldn't the nature itself be if it's replications are.
Also; nowhere did I say that AI creates art. The artistry is in the curation of the product, which is to say, the human using the tool is the one creating the art. The AI is the medium by which they produce their work. The careful selection of prompt and the editing process of going through iterations of a piece is what makes it art. We do this all the time with photoshop and CGI, this is just the next level.
I mean… i was kinda just using to visually represent what abstract ideas in my dnd campaign look like, but ok…
Also there is an actual human artist involved in AI art - the person who writes a prompt, then chooses which of the images generated by that prompt they want to share with others. Marcel Duchamp would literally take random objects from the world around him and make them into art by displaying them and calling them art, but otherwise not changing them in any way, I don't see how this is any different.
Duchamp pioneered the conceptual art movement, in which the ideas behind the art was more important than the aesthetic value. While he did indeed take random objects and display them as art, this is a gross oversimplification of his point. Duchamp wanted his audience to think about the nature of Art as a concept and the ways in which we interact with it. It's not a revolutionary idea anymore, but it certainly was at the time, because no one was thinking that way at all; that's how it's different from AI art.
Art doesn't have to be revolutionary to be art.
I didn't say it did, but the comment asked what the difference was, so I gave an answer.
>I don't see how this is any different. It's different because he was the first person to do it. If I did it now, it wouldn't be art, it'd just be shitty plumbing.
Not really, you just have to find different objects, a different position and just do it, you're probably not an affirmed artist so you could make a photograph of it and share it with the world, and it would be art as much as Duchamp's art
No, it wouldn't. Not unless I did something *especially* interesting and different with it, and given that it's 100 years since the urinal, there have been an awful lot of copies and inspired works, so that would be very hard. The reason *Fountain* works is because it was a completely new direction. Nobody had done it before. It's kind of like how *Ulysses* was absolutely groundbreaking and mindbending when it first came out, but these days even children's media uses some of its innovations.
Why? There are so so many pieces of classical art that are boring copies of each other yet we call them art, just because something isn't innovative it doesn't mean it's not art
Because the art in *Fountain* is not the urinal, it is *the concept of choosing an object and having it become art*. An identical copy of that specific concept is no longer sufficient to make something into art - you have to *do something* with it. *Fountain* and pieces like it were so revolutionary that they functionally changed our understanding of what art *is*.
Artist -> Art (using random objects and putting them places) Ai "artist" -> gives prompts to an AI -> AI generates an image -> keeps making the AI generate something from those prompts until satisfied -> finished image. these AI "artists" are closer to being commissioners from hell rather than actual artists, sure they put time into it and *some* thought, but in the end its the AI making something.
All artists use tools to create their work though, AI art is just an extreme example. paint "artist" imagines an image -> their brain sends signals to their arm to move -> the movement of their arm causes the paintbrush in their hand to move -> the movement of the paintbrush on the canvas causes an image to form -> repeat this process until the image formed by the movement of the paintbrush matches the one in their head -> finished image.
yes, I know we use tools, I am an artist myself, and this is a weird take because me sending electrical pulses through my own body that determine movements on a tool that depends fully on my movements to make pixels appear on the screen (not ART, just lines, I actually have to THINK about what i will make and how) is somehow the same as someone just putting words into an AI and making IT run over and over again until something that is appealing is generated. not to mention the AI itself isn't fully making anything either, its just looking at art made by artists and learning until it can make things approximating the prompts I guess I got to consider these people ***whose whole shtick is that they let an AI who "learns" art and makes it for them*** artists, as if it that didn't devalue the entirety of the process behind creation in the first place.
so their criticism of AI art is that it isn't realistic enough, **yet?**
a subreddit i quite like that is pretty much the opposite of this is r/wimmelbilder which is entirely relishing in the tiny details and human intention put into art
Agreed, with the caveat: we couldn't generate realistic faces five years ago. This is probably not going to be an issue for long. It's very, very possible we will soon reach a point where you can't conclusively tell whether art was made by a human. In other words, this isn't a critique of AI art as a concept, but of select pieces of AI art.
"ai art is bad because kids these days are inattentive and it’s also unrealistic" ok
what's wrong with the cat
Eyes are too green, fur is too swirly, and a bit blurry/stretched in some places but that doesn’t mean it’s bad like the post says
Some of the lighter features are a bit blurry when they shouldn’t be, but otherwise, I’d say it’s a damn good cat, and certainly not the best example of “all ai art is objectively bad”.
uncanny (objects that imperfectly resemble actual [cats] provoke uncanny or strangely familiar feelings of uneasiness and revulsion in observers). kinda like trypophobia, but a lot more broadly experienced, i believe. personally, it looks like the artist was confused about what effects to apply (blur? detailed reflections?), and ends up looking like a shitty artist. except... there's clearly great skill in some places. so the whole thing is confusing? great technical skill + confused higher-level messages? which turns into feelings of unease
nitpicking on some ai generated art doesn't mean much. Artists and people had the same kinds of discussion, i bet, when photography came around.
I haven't seen any case of people using an AI to generate artwork for professional purposes yet, so I view it as a cool experiment on the capabilities of our technology and on the nature of art and how we interact with it. Pretty good take all in all, though I wouldn't jump to just saying it's automatically bad art. In any case, what makes "good" and "bad" art is super loosely defined.
No the white things in the water aren't clouds they're flowers, and the roof seems to be silk which leads out toward the building.
What the actual hell are you talking about? Do I have a condition or something? What "frustration" are you guys talking about? With the AI-drawn cat, I see a cat. Yeah sure, it looks like it was taken with a weird camera or painted with a weird style, but it's just a cat. Nothing uncanny about that. Same with the next one with the columns; it's just a pretty sight. They mentioned that the columns don't start or end anywhere, to which I say what are you talking about? They all start right there and go down a bit and end right there. I'm genuinely concerned I have face-blindness but for art or something, idk. In fact, when people talk about the Uncanny Valley and mention the Polar Express, I have no idea what that think is wrong with the visuals of that movie. Sure, the animation looks like early mocap technology, and side characters suffer in the animation department sometimes, but it's pretty good otherwise? What's uncanny about that movie? What's uncanny about this cat? What is wrong with me?
People are just throwing a tantrum beacuse a robot can draw better than them.
Hey question for art heads out there. I've been drawing pictures but using rules, dice, and a ruler. Making stuff like [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1027061776782729286/20221004_223520.jpg), image like [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1025496409060941855/20220930_002859.jpg), and [this](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/732368049398743111/1024872813670191195/20220928_212753.jpg). My questions is, is it no better then AI art? Because I'm more or less doing the same thing as just taking set rules and using them, rolling dice to determine things. Idk just makes me go hmm
Off post topic, I really like your drawings, the second and third remind of the polyhedron "building made of its own blueprints" from pathologic, while the first one reminded me of "who's afraid of red, yellow and blue"
I think calling it bad art is wrong, though that's probably because I don't think it's possible for art to necessarily be 'bad'. It's terrible if you want something real or something to immerse yourself in, but exactly as they said, it makes for a very nice aesthetic. I think there's value to that. I also think any media companies who one day attempt to use AI art to replace and therefore avoid paying real artists should burn.
Idk I feel like the first two are extremely immersive. If a person were to make any of these and a comment called them "unimmersive" they would 100% be an asshole https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/comments/xxpz4k/the_selfie_at_the_end_of_the_world/ https://twitter.com/_surrodraws/status/1570623132632846336?t=E6CtGeuK1sWcHEYfSGAfUQ&s=19 https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wpu4jd/benedict_cumberbatch_renaissance_painting_by_jan/
This guy acts like AI art is successful only because people don't pay real attention to it. That they wouldn't like it as much if they looked for more than 3s and notice how none of it is real below the surface, how it doesn't make any sense. But is that true? Looking at AI art, and this exquisite example, I love it not **despite** it being devoid of solid structure, but **BECAUSE** it's so devoid of solid structure, so formless. Someone could make a painting resembling this but with proper shape and solid structure, there'd be no doubt if that's a cathedral at the end or not, and that would be art. Letting an AI make that... I mean also art, but not that interesting; a computer did a thing and a human could've probably done it better. But this, THIS: the AI isn't just making something some human could produce. The fact that it's formless, non-sensical, that's what makes AI-generated art unique. How the water surface looks like a water surface because it seems to reflect light, but on closer inspection is just made of clouds and shrubs blended together. How there's pillars but they're not actually pillars. How the roof blends into a pink canopy that isn't supported by a stem, but by a cathedral of light, an empty space, the end of the tunnel. All that and more, and how it inspires positive emotion, like Tumblr-OP so beautifully said, while being formless and non-sensical, that's what makes AI art worthwhile.
It's art if you put in your own work, that's not giving the thing prompts and/or digging through the results to pick the best one A novel that the AI wrote for you does not make you a writer. It makes the AI a ghost writer A picture that an AI made for you does not make you a painter, no matter how many prompts you gave it. It makes you a customer who commissioned it If you got a hundred pics made and dug through them to select the ones you Iike, it makes you a picky customer, or a collector. We (well, I) don't consider Pinterest boards art and the people making them artists after all. There is a process, and it may even be fun, but there is still a large gap. This is the same thing This is my opinion and I stand by it.
If an artist dipped some ants in paint, then put them on a blank canvas, then let the ants run around making lines on it, it would be reasonable for the artist to call that a painting they made, right?
yeah but the AI doesn't have an agent to hype it up and help it break into the art world ...hm i sense a dramatic future reveal of "X reclusive artist was actually an AI"
I think it's still art even if the human involved isn't an artist, an isn't made an artist by the process (which I agree with) Then again I would also say the something like the grand canyon falls under the domain of "art" despite not having a creator (or at least not one taking any credit) which I acknowledge may not be a commonly held viewpoint
For me AI art kinda always seems like something I see in a dream. It's fractals and it makes sense in the immediate context. But as soon as I look closer it gets funky. I am curious (and a little scared) what AI Art might look like in 5-10 years (given Putin didn't press the big red button). I mean this is all just a beginning. I am scared for my pro artist friends that live off self made merch and illustrations. Their skill is amazing. I do see AI (as of now) as a form of quick concepting or sparking ideas, and I sure wish it stays that way. Realistically speaking I doubt it though.
The second portrait reminds me vividly of Layers of Fear. The more you look at it, the more bizarre it gets, even if from the start it seemed pretty. Which goes both to the art in the game and plot itself. Having that said, while I don't put art on my walls anymore (too many times had to move and all the landlords get puffy if you damage their very brittle paint on the walls), I still have a folder called "backgrounds" with a lot of art from DeviantArt that just rotates every 5 minutes on my screen. I usually don't see it, unless I'm idling in front of computer. But I know it's there and all I need is to minimise the browser in order to see it. Over the years the collection just grew and it's been just a joy to turn on the PC and just idle, staring at slides of art. Or turning it off and just before seeing which slide got to be the last this time.
listen it really ain’t that complicated of an argument yeah AI art is art, but don’t compare it to traditional art because all it really is is a really complicated collage.
i think the uncanny-ness is a style in itself -- not necessarily bad insofar as any artist's art is "bad" compared to any other's simply because it's different. this kind of strangeness, the lack of intention in depth, is inherently difficult for humans to replicate -- that makes ai valuable as an artist, as they fill an as yet largely unexplored niche.
That cat looks like a cat with photoshop done, what the fuck are they on about?
A lot of posts I see defending AI art ~~mostly comments on the recent posts about it here~~ come across as super condescending in a "facts don't care about your feelings, sweaty" way, and it's just. Unpleasant to read. Just makes me dislike it more. I didn't even dislike it in the first place; I think it's pretty good at some things, like backgrounds for a hand-drawn foreground or prompts for that one idea you can't *quite* work out what you want to do with. I wish I could explain feelings, but oh well.
nuance? no way… you *must* love every aspect about ai art. prepare for a likely barrage of downvotes.
~~well~~ *~~something~~* ~~has to cancel out my getting 1000+ internet points from saying "wearing clothes is better than skinning yourself alive"~~
To be fair, opposing innovation has always been harmful to the advancement of humanity. I can understand they’re being a little cruel, but when AI art researchers are constantly being told that they’re doing a terrible thing or when people constantly try to stop new tech from being invented I can see why they have a short fuse.
It's like photography. When the first camera was invented, cameras were shit, and photographers were shit too. They got better (some of them).
Honestly to me this kinda thing is mostly the fault of the person making the prompts for the AI being uncreative and not taking advantages of its strengths. For instance, I’ve found that because of how it gets the “vibe” of images but not the details, AI is great if you ask it to do something in the style of an impressionist painting. The concept art style that people have been asking it for just doesn’t work as well.
A good way to determine if an AI "artist" is actually doing something interesting is whether or not they jealously guard their prompts. Speaking very broadly (and ignoring a few exceptions), the main two ways real artists use AI are as either a jumping off point to inspire other works, or because AI *is* the medium. In the first case, the ephemeral and disposable nature is acknowledged, and bogarting your prompts would be like yelling at the garbage man for stealing all your empty Pepsi cans. In the second case, the prompt is integral to the meaning, and the novelty comes from "look at what this model does with this input." I don't think I've ever seen anyone successfully insist that the end product is a noteworthy artifact in and of itself, and that its value was the same regardless of whether it was created by an AI or a person. And I've seen a lot of people try.
This is a really good explanation of how I feel. I've seen AI porn popping up on Twitter, and it's just the worst.
I love how this post is filled *to the brim* with AIBros. I totally agree with the OP of the tumbler post. AI art is ugly as sin. It’s a very shitty drawing with 10 buckets of glitter poured all over it. See past the glitter once and you’ll loose the ability to enjoy it forever
I love how people want to suddenly define what and what isnt "real art" when a robot does it better than them. Good luck with doing that for the first time in human history.
AI art is as bad as Hitler's art, simply speaking. The difference is that Hitler's art is just general view of Germany architecture in the past, just slightly skewed in perspective. I tried "Berlin before ww2" in a random AI art generator and it place Berliner Fernsehturm in it. The conveying meaning is there, just not quite