Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it’s unlikely that your work will be impactful.
I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
That Machine Learning model will learn… from what?
The training data could be the same as it is today, but maybe something novel could be produced by changing the objective function?
That would be possible, in an abstract way.
Let’s say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.
Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.
This will be a model that only knows the artist’s work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.
Now, let’s do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.
Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That’s a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.
I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.
Brian Eno, Terry Riley, and John Cage are names that come close to doing what you are describing. The idea of “generative” or “stochastic” or “aleotoric” music has been around for longer than this current AI boom has.
I also found this fascinating bit of music on wiki:
There are possibilities, but there are 99 lazy and uncreative people who just want to press the “make music now” button for every 1 person that wants to spend hours building and training their own models/sequences. (Those 99 have absolutely ruined the lofi/study beats on YouTube…)
Check out the youtuber “Neural Viz”. Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters. As @tjsauce pointed out, it ultimately comes down to how much you care about what you publish. You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific. That’s where the artist becomes a designer: someone who not only creates, but curates with intention. Most people aren’t thinking that way.
Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.
He hasn’t, though. He’s done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion’s share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.
I think part of the problem with the “AI is Art, aktuly” discourse is that people who aren’t professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist’s end goal. This isn’t about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking “I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle” instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
AI generated images are images.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
It’s a shorthand to describe basic quality. Because AI slop can be manufactured so quickly, and because it can reasonably approach human art at first glance, the fundamental problem it presents is one of sifting. How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
Even without commercialization
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work. Even then, its haphazard and poorly implemented. But there’s just so god damn much of it. The media equivalent of smog clouding up your windshield and clogging your lungs.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
I don’t think even the people who unironically call themselves “AI artists”, as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work.
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don’t think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That’s how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.
OK but now do that without stealing other people’s art.
Yeah, that is pretty much how it goes. Some nice person shares a piece of AI art they find interesting and the AntiAI bros bully them nonstop and proceed to word vomit their nonsense for the next 3 years all over every site even when it isn’t relevant.
Machine learning is a net positive for technology and society, IF used wisely. The people who consume art are distressed that they can no longer filter for AI. AI images would be less controversial if we didn’t have so much of it masquerading as human art.
This technology is not the issue, it’s how people use it to the detriment of society and the environment.
What’s it like not being creative? Must suck.
You’d know.
Even your reply was AI generated from stolen replies. Amazing!
Yes, my brain was trained on many sources and that was the reply that was generated. Now you are getting the hang of how AI works. Congrats. Take your new knowledge and go do great things in the world.
Careful now, Lemmy is the most anti AI echo chamber there is
Edit: case in point
People love it when they find something they can bully people with and feel self righteous about it. Especially when they feel like they have a big enough gang to back them up.
Linux and windows. Another topic to avoid unless you instantly want it derailed.
Funny how they are totally fine with using tools like Autofill with photoshop though. The hypocrisy is what’s the funniest.
at some point you just have to stop arguing and punch them in the face.
Me: “Oh? Show me some of your original art.”
Artist: “ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE!”
Me: “What… what are you doing?”
Artist: “Sorry, my artistic tools aren’t working properly. Let me try refining my prompts.”
People who unironically call themselves “AI Artists” are easy targets.
“ai bad, updoots to the left”
I think this is really rivaling AI generated images for lack of substance
“I am a photographer!”
“So you just push a button and steal people’s privacy? Not real art!”
Photography involves shot composition and timing. You don’t just point and press a button. That’s why people typically hire photographers for things like weddings - it’s an actual skill, and not something you want to just trust some random who doesn’t know at least stuff like the rule of thirds with. What to include in the frame, not cropping things out awkwardly, dealing with moving people, trying to catch flattering angles…
That’s not even getting into post processing and editing.
Your example would only make sense if someone was going around claiming they were an “artist” because they went around a museum taking full frame pictures of the pictures.
That is exactly why I said it
If you open up your camera app and spin around and take a picture, 99% of the picture will be garbage.
If you boot up a AI art program and type in a random prompt, 99% of that will be garbage.
Photographer have specialize lenses and choices of FOV that affects how the pictures look. Ai artists have specialized weight and loras that affect how the picture will look.
Photographer don’t just take pictures at random. They set and frame the scenes - doing prep work and framing. AI artist can use base pictures instead of random noise to bias the outcome (image to image).
With live subjects, photographer can either give no guidance, or direct the subjects (think “look at the camera and say cheese”, only more nuanced). With AI art, there is a whole subfield of prompt engineering l which is akin to this.
After a photographer take pictures, they do minor touch ups and photoshoping to clean up parts that didn’t come out right. So too with AI artists.
And with both, you can get 100s if not 1000s of pictures of a subject. The photographer and the AI artist true test is being able to pick from those thousands the one or two good shots.
Yes there is a bunch of legal and copyright problems with AI art. When the camera was first invented, people argued that you couldn’t take pictures of crowds without getting everyone’s concent, nor could you take picture of other people’s property with out breaking the law. That the legal realities around photography weren’t settled didn’t mean those taking picture back then weren’t artists, and it doesn’t mean that people doing AI art today aren’t artists. AI generators are like camera in that you get out better results depending on how much work you put it.
Keep fighting the good fight. If we can just be a little bit more elitist and haulier than thou I’m sure we’ll make AI art go away.
Oh no, we made talentless duschebro sad by dissing his favourite slop creating forestburner. Whatever we will do
Exactly. If you just insult people enough, they will surely chabge their mind!!!
We are not trying to change your mind. We are making fun of you.
Cool. I’ll keep that in mind next time you cry about AI “”“stealing”“” art and making artist redundant.
That’s why we’re making fun of you
If we’re just a bit nice to those fascists they’ll change their mind 😢
Ah yes, people that use a computer program to make pictures are fascists. Very intelligent take.
No wonder you like slop generators that can hold context of exactly one sentence this much. You basically are one.
Removed by mod
can take in context of your entire conversation history
Well, you can’t, so how would you know
Isn’t weird how all the fascists and Nazis push for AI? Does it make you hesitate or think a bit maybe?
you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core.
i’m extremely anti fascist and this is not a true statement.
And hitler was a vegetarian, so I guess all vegetarians are fascists.
Also FYI, I’ve been arrested for physically assaulting neo nazis at a counter protes, so go fuck yourself keyboard warrior.
Nah go fuck yourself. I can list all my accolades too but i don’t need to do that. You techno-fascists are the same.
Sorry, bozo, facts don’t care about your feelings. If you want people to be nice, be nice to them first.
Lmao the irony.
I bet you can’t recognise irony even if it hits you in the face. Which is actually did right now.
And now the projection, lol.
But yeah, next time you cry about AI “stealing” something. I want you to remember “sorry bozo, facts don’t care about your feelings”
You continue using words without having a slightest idea what they mean.
Dude. DUDE. Really?
Yes. The smug elitism about AI art is just stupid.
I like the tech and I want it implemented in an ethical way by someone who cares. I got into technology because I love it, I want to see humanity reach ever greater feats of knowledge and have the benefits accessible to as many people as possible. I think LLMs and image generation have enormous potential and it’d be a shame to not it see so much of it fulfilled in my lifetime.
That said, god, I hate the absolutely insane arguments used by AI fans. Look at this comment section. It’s just the worst, most nonsensical comparisons, over and over again. Use the fill tool in paint but don’t like it when someone compares a fill algorithm with massive art theft by corporations enriching billionaires? Hypocrite. Use anything you’ve ever seen as reference but don’t think software and human beings are comparable? Hypocrite. Take pictures with a camera? Believe it or not, hypocrite.
Can’t we agree that Sam Altman and his friends don’t have our best interests in mind? That what has been done to artists, authors, journalists, and all sorts of creators, is immoral and shouldn’t be ignored? Shit, they’re the only reason the tech is even possible! We would not enjoy such powerful image generation if not for the decades of material they’ve provided humanity and AI companies have taken without permission.
Why are you so cruel to those who made it all possible? To frame the shoulders you stand upon, those of creators whose work was stolen and whose livelihoods are at risk, as of Luddites and elitists, then claim their protests should be ignored, is beyond disrespectful.
Angry and scared people often lash out, and nobody likes being on the receiving end of that, I get it. I would also like it if we could talk this out calmly… But they’re the ones being kicked down. I think a bit of anger is to be expected, it’s understandable. What it isn’t, is an excuse to keep trampling over humanity’s creative workers because someone was mean to you.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}