Like the only reason I can think of is it maybe makes someone who is lazy feel good about themselves because they make a computer generated picture with zero effort (while stealing from real artists and feeding the megacorp machine) ?
Sorry, this is on the same level of saying “well they denied electricity at first and this is just like that!” Braindead take.
Carry on. (Yes im reinforcing your comment by even replying here, ha!!)
i’m an ML/AI engineer, i could generate plenty of things locally or at the university on their systems without a megacorp involved anywhere in the pipeline at this stage.
people would defend AI art bc they’re not conceited and do not hold weird selective views regarding what art is. that’s really all it is.
people can hate the technology all they want but that doesn’t change the fact that what they’re actually mad at is the result of solely corporatism and capitalism. the actual technology itself is a fucking fascinating take on statistics and how to handle big data. what, megacorps abused math so now i’m supposed to hate math? i’ll never understand you guys!
If you want art to have absolutely zero humanity in it, gobble up all the slop you want.
You are correct about the end stage capitalism component. But if youre truly a “prompt engineer” you should know running a local model doesnt at all unlink you from massive data sucking corps, because who do you think trained that model?
For the record I will also say that painting a picture DOES take more invested skill than a photograph, and I will respect the person who painted a scene vs took a picture of it WAY more. Now, both can be enjoyed by anyone, and thats fine.
I’ll have absolutely 0 respect for any image made using ai. Its a toy, and a tool for corporations to further cut costs where they want to the most (take out the pesky humans and gross empathy, ick!)
The skill that it takes to produce something is a horrible, horrible metric for what makes something good art or not. There are artworks that took tons of skill but are boring, bland, generic, emotionless - all the things you don’t like about AI art. There are artworks that took next to no skill but stand out as powerful, great works that resonate with everyone.
Skill is a proxy used to judge art in place of having developed taste. The purpose of art is not to show off, to flex your skill, or demonstrate technical superiority to others. This is a very sad, utilitarian, economic view of art that I beg you to reconsider.
Its a good point. However id argue that many things did require great skill and time commitments OR the people who created them were so above normal people with their gifts that it didn’t take them as much effort as someone else.
Example, do you think Bach wrote all his best work in a day with no effort ?
Do you think a 3 minute song made of GarageBand loops by a 13 year old is on the same level of art ? No, its not. However, someone may enjoy the 3 minute looped song over a Bach piece. Thats fine. But if we have to ask which is higher art and which is timeless, its going to be the Bach piece.
I agree though to a point, metal for example. Just because dream theater puts out an insanely complex 20 minute song that only they can play proficiently doesn’t mean its “better” than enter sandman. The areas get very gray at that point.
While I agree with your conclusion about the garageband loops vs the Bach, I think that the skill was coincidental, not essential, in the superiority of the Bach piece. It’s not the fact that Bach was more skilled that makes his piece better. It’s simply the case that his skill made it easier for him to discover a better piece. It’s something useful for him, but as people who experience his art, it’s not what the art is about. If a toddler happened to accidentally mash out the same piece on the piano at home (yes this is unfathomably unlikely), it would still be an equally amazing and timeless piece - despite the fact that no skill whatsoever went into it. All that the artwork is, is contained in the artwork. Everything else is extraneous context that we may derive some other additional value from, but it is not essential to the art in itself.
i honestly stopped reading after you called my job prompt engineering.
machine learning has been a specialization for well over a century. i have a master’s degree in it, im an expert on the topic and am certain what i do is not “prompt engineering.”
do you think LLMs like ChatGPT just sprung out of the ground like plants? people had to design those. even if you don’t like them figuring out how to build one is engineering, doubtlessly so. using a tool that has been engineered isn’t engineering, obviously, but i’m not going to further entertain this strawmanning.
That’s because you are as wilfully ignorant as trump cultist and refuse to understand how this new tool works. You’ve been told it’s bad by luddite youtube influencers and that’s good enough for you.
It takes skill to eat literal shit without gagging
Doesn’t change anything about how good it is.
Skill has nothing to do with art.
People said the same about electronic music. Calling it “skill-less” music, since you only have to “press a couple of buttons” instead of learning an entire instrument.
Yes yes, “electronic calculators will steal jobs”. “Electronic calculators will make us dumber.” People have been crying wolf about technology for decades.
And photography before that, and pre-mixed paints before that (the media dragged J. M. W Turner of all people for it!). I imagine many of the same arguments were used against pencils and brushes when they were first invented too!
Here’s my reason for it. Let’s suppose that I have set a xylophone up outside near a rocky cliff face, and one day, some rocks fall loose from the top of the cliff and strike the xylophone in such a way as to coincidentally produce the melody of Bach’s Prelude in C Major from the Well-Tempered Clavier. Is this melody any less beautiful, less artistic, because it was not produced by a human? Does it really matter whether the xylophone event happened before or after Bach’s writing of the Prelude? If the xylophone event happened first, would we say Bach’s authoring of the melody was superfluous?
Consider this: there are 8 notes to a major scale, and so this means that there are only 32,768 possible 5-note sequences within one octave to make a melody out of (more if you count the timing of the notes, but the point remains). The possibility space of melodies is already implicitly formed by the medium. When Bach writes a 5 note melody, we say that he has created a melody - but we could just as well say that he discovered one of the pre-existing 32,768 melodies of 5 notes.
This paradigm is true in visual arts as well. We can start with a small example: imagine a community of pixel artists making black and white pixel art images on a canvas of 32x32 pixels. Or you could imagine them as weavers of rugs with up to 32 weaves in and out in both directions, if you’d rather a low-tech example. There are a HUGE number of possible ways to choose to color in these pixels even just black and white. But the number is still finite. Now let me ask you this. Have you ever made visual art before? If you have, you probably know how the blank canvas full of possibilities quickly narrows down to constraints as your composition comes along. “If my figure is posed like this, I can’t show both the elbow and wrist, unless I use a strange perspective…”, “if I give them black hair, it darkens the composition too much and doesn’t look as good, but maybe if I add more light it could work…” Etc. What is it that you’re doing as an artist? You’re narrowing down the possibilities, from the HUGE possibility space of the blank canvas, to narrower and narrower “acceptable” configurations according to the criteria of the goal you have in mind.
Now suppose instead that I was doing really constrained pixel art - black or white only on a 3x3 grid. In that case there are only 512 possible artworks to be made. In that case, we COULD lay out all 512 of them, and just pick the one we like best. But if we were not very smart people, maybe we couldn’t figure out this trick, and we’d have to use our artistry to explore the 512 possible canvases one by one. We can imagine an artist eventually choosing configuration #371 as their artwork. They probably won’t think of as though they’ve chosen configuration #371, they probably will think of it like “I have come up with this new arrangement of pixels on the 3x3 canvas” - but in reality all they did was discover a possibility that has already existed since the beginning of time. Either way, I hope you and I agree that this person’s pixel art, despite being small and likely pretty boring, is still ART. It’s a work of art, although maybe not a great one. Now if I have a computer do the same process - explore this latent possibility space according to some criteria, finally selecting one possible configuration - and let’s say the computer also selects #371. Are we going to say this is not art? But this would be paradoxical! It’s the same image the artist made! Anyone who is familiar with the notion of “the death of the author” will see this is quite the same sort of principle. And if the computer happened to select #371 before any human did, would we then accuse the human of having “copied” the computer? Clearly not. This line of thinking, to me, is a strong one to defend AI images as possibly being legitimate and original art.
As an artist, you cannot create a new possibility within the medium. You can only actualize a possibility that has always latently been implied by the constraints of that medium. This is why many musicians and artists often talk about “finding” a melody or “finding” a vision. They find it because they are searching. They are searching their own unique path through that massive possibility space. The possibility space is too large for us to just simply look at every possibility and pick the one we like best - so we have to explore it, choosing at every moment which direction is best to step towards next, based on what we’ve got so far, and what we think we’ve learned about the shape of this possibility landscape over our experiences as artists.
Yeah that’s a damn fine example of a really stupid take. Thank you.
Lets start with the amount of effort it takes not being related to artistic value, otherwise your pictures would be worth more than Picasso’s doodles, wh9ich is clearly bullshit. Plus the fact that’s ableist as fuck - I recently suffered nerve damage and so can’t actually control a pencil properly, and trying get painful, soi are you really saying disabled people can’t and shouldn’t create art?
Now theft - it; not theft. No artist is denied their work, no copies are made, and it can’t reproduce their work. It can mimic a style but most of the people who complain about that are the most derivative anime-style furry porn artists (no offence to furry porn, but what they create is no high art!)
Oh, and I agree that the best ai, like most software, is run locally and is open source. Disliking megacorps is not a criticism of ai
Wait but why would someone defend ai art…
Like the only reason I can think of is it maybe makes someone who is lazy feel good about themselves because they make a computer generated picture with zero effort (while stealing from real artists and feeding the megacorp machine) ?
Sorry, this is on the same level of saying “well they denied electricity at first and this is just like that!” Braindead take.
Carry on. (Yes im reinforcing your comment by even replying here, ha!!)
i’m an ML/AI engineer, i could generate plenty of things locally or at the university on their systems without a megacorp involved anywhere in the pipeline at this stage.
people would defend AI art bc they’re not conceited and do not hold weird selective views regarding what art is. that’s really all it is.
people can hate the technology all they want but that doesn’t change the fact that what they’re actually mad at is the result of solely corporatism and capitalism. the actual technology itself is a fucking fascinating take on statistics and how to handle big data. what, megacorps abused math so now i’m supposed to hate math? i’ll never understand you guys!
Lookout guys, its a prompt “engineer”!
My 5 year old niece is a prompt “engineer” too.
If you want art to have absolutely zero humanity in it, gobble up all the slop you want.
You are correct about the end stage capitalism component. But if youre truly a “prompt engineer” you should know running a local model doesnt at all unlink you from massive data sucking corps, because who do you think trained that model?
For the record I will also say that painting a picture DOES take more invested skill than a photograph, and I will respect the person who painted a scene vs took a picture of it WAY more. Now, both can be enjoyed by anyone, and thats fine.
I’ll have absolutely 0 respect for any image made using ai. Its a toy, and a tool for corporations to further cut costs where they want to the most (take out the pesky humans and gross empathy, ick!)
The skill that it takes to produce something is a horrible, horrible metric for what makes something good art or not. There are artworks that took tons of skill but are boring, bland, generic, emotionless - all the things you don’t like about AI art. There are artworks that took next to no skill but stand out as powerful, great works that resonate with everyone.
Skill is a proxy used to judge art in place of having developed taste. The purpose of art is not to show off, to flex your skill, or demonstrate technical superiority to others. This is a very sad, utilitarian, economic view of art that I beg you to reconsider.
Its a good point. However id argue that many things did require great skill and time commitments OR the people who created them were so above normal people with their gifts that it didn’t take them as much effort as someone else.
Example, do you think Bach wrote all his best work in a day with no effort ?
Do you think a 3 minute song made of GarageBand loops by a 13 year old is on the same level of art ? No, its not. However, someone may enjoy the 3 minute looped song over a Bach piece. Thats fine. But if we have to ask which is higher art and which is timeless, its going to be the Bach piece.
I agree though to a point, metal for example. Just because dream theater puts out an insanely complex 20 minute song that only they can play proficiently doesn’t mean its “better” than enter sandman. The areas get very gray at that point.
While I agree with your conclusion about the garageband loops vs the Bach, I think that the skill was coincidental, not essential, in the superiority of the Bach piece. It’s not the fact that Bach was more skilled that makes his piece better. It’s simply the case that his skill made it easier for him to discover a better piece. It’s something useful for him, but as people who experience his art, it’s not what the art is about. If a toddler happened to accidentally mash out the same piece on the piano at home (yes this is unfathomably unlikely), it would still be an equally amazing and timeless piece - despite the fact that no skill whatsoever went into it. All that the artwork is, is contained in the artwork. Everything else is extraneous context that we may derive some other additional value from, but it is not essential to the art in itself.
i honestly stopped reading after you called my job prompt engineering.
machine learning has been a specialization for well over a century. i have a master’s degree in it, im an expert on the topic and am certain what i do is not “prompt engineering.”
do you think LLMs like ChatGPT just sprung out of the ground like plants? people had to design those. even if you don’t like them figuring out how to build one is engineering, doubtlessly so. using a tool that has been engineered isn’t engineering, obviously, but i’m not going to further entertain this strawmanning.
Yes GD and ML are entirely different. I agree with you. I just dont understand why you would support llm based art.
That’s because you are as wilfully ignorant as trump cultist and refuse to understand how this new tool works. You’ve been told it’s bad by luddite youtube influencers and that’s good enough for you.
It takes skill to eat literal shit without gagging
Doesn’t change anything about how good it is.
Skill has nothing to do with art.
People said the same about electronic music. Calling it “skill-less” music, since you only have to “press a couple of buttons” instead of learning an entire instrument.
AI art requires “zero effort” in much the same way that creating art using digital cameras requires “zero effort.”
Yes yes, “electronic calculators will steal jobs”. “Electronic calculators will make us dumber.” People have been crying wolf about technology for decades.
For the same reason that we defended computer-aided art back in the day after people had the exact same reaction to it.
And photography before that, and pre-mixed paints before that (the media dragged J. M. W Turner of all people for it!). I imagine many of the same arguments were used against pencils and brushes when they were first invented too!
Forgive the Haters
Here’s my reason for it. Let’s suppose that I have set a xylophone up outside near a rocky cliff face, and one day, some rocks fall loose from the top of the cliff and strike the xylophone in such a way as to coincidentally produce the melody of Bach’s Prelude in C Major from the Well-Tempered Clavier. Is this melody any less beautiful, less artistic, because it was not produced by a human? Does it really matter whether the xylophone event happened before or after Bach’s writing of the Prelude? If the xylophone event happened first, would we say Bach’s authoring of the melody was superfluous?
Consider this: there are 8 notes to a major scale, and so this means that there are only 32,768 possible 5-note sequences within one octave to make a melody out of (more if you count the timing of the notes, but the point remains). The possibility space of melodies is already implicitly formed by the medium. When Bach writes a 5 note melody, we say that he has created a melody - but we could just as well say that he discovered one of the pre-existing 32,768 melodies of 5 notes.
This paradigm is true in visual arts as well. We can start with a small example: imagine a community of pixel artists making black and white pixel art images on a canvas of 32x32 pixels. Or you could imagine them as weavers of rugs with up to 32 weaves in and out in both directions, if you’d rather a low-tech example. There are a HUGE number of possible ways to choose to color in these pixels even just black and white. But the number is still finite. Now let me ask you this. Have you ever made visual art before? If you have, you probably know how the blank canvas full of possibilities quickly narrows down to constraints as your composition comes along. “If my figure is posed like this, I can’t show both the elbow and wrist, unless I use a strange perspective…”, “if I give them black hair, it darkens the composition too much and doesn’t look as good, but maybe if I add more light it could work…” Etc. What is it that you’re doing as an artist? You’re narrowing down the possibilities, from the HUGE possibility space of the blank canvas, to narrower and narrower “acceptable” configurations according to the criteria of the goal you have in mind.
Now suppose instead that I was doing really constrained pixel art - black or white only on a 3x3 grid. In that case there are only 512 possible artworks to be made. In that case, we COULD lay out all 512 of them, and just pick the one we like best. But if we were not very smart people, maybe we couldn’t figure out this trick, and we’d have to use our artistry to explore the 512 possible canvases one by one. We can imagine an artist eventually choosing configuration #371 as their artwork. They probably won’t think of as though they’ve chosen configuration #371, they probably will think of it like “I have come up with this new arrangement of pixels on the 3x3 canvas” - but in reality all they did was discover a possibility that has already existed since the beginning of time. Either way, I hope you and I agree that this person’s pixel art, despite being small and likely pretty boring, is still ART. It’s a work of art, although maybe not a great one. Now if I have a computer do the same process - explore this latent possibility space according to some criteria, finally selecting one possible configuration - and let’s say the computer also selects #371. Are we going to say this is not art? But this would be paradoxical! It’s the same image the artist made! Anyone who is familiar with the notion of “the death of the author” will see this is quite the same sort of principle. And if the computer happened to select #371 before any human did, would we then accuse the human of having “copied” the computer? Clearly not. This line of thinking, to me, is a strong one to defend AI images as possibly being legitimate and original art.
As an artist, you cannot create a new possibility within the medium. You can only actualize a possibility that has always latently been implied by the constraints of that medium. This is why many musicians and artists often talk about “finding” a melody or “finding” a vision. They find it because they are searching. They are searching their own unique path through that massive possibility space. The possibility space is too large for us to just simply look at every possibility and pick the one we like best - so we have to explore it, choosing at every moment which direction is best to step towards next, based on what we’ve got so far, and what we think we’ve learned about the shape of this possibility landscape over our experiences as artists.
Yeah that’s a damn fine example of a really stupid take. Thank you.
Lets start with the amount of effort it takes not being related to artistic value, otherwise your pictures would be worth more than Picasso’s doodles, wh9ich is clearly bullshit. Plus the fact that’s ableist as fuck - I recently suffered nerve damage and so can’t actually control a pencil properly, and trying get painful, soi are you really saying disabled people can’t and shouldn’t create art?
Now theft - it; not theft. No artist is denied their work, no copies are made, and it can’t reproduce their work. It can mimic a style but most of the people who complain about that are the most derivative anime-style furry porn artists (no offence to furry porn, but what they create is no high art!)
Oh, and I agree that the best ai, like most software, is run locally and is open source. Disliking megacorps is not a criticism of ai
So yeah, thanks again for illustrating my point
Lol at a luddite calling someone braindead.